Prisons: Young Offenders

Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the report by the Prison Reform Trust, A Lost Generation: the experiences of young people in prison, published on 4 November.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are considering this report. The Government have invested heavily in improved regimes for all prisoners, concentrating on activities such as education and vocational training, which are of course particularly valuable for young adults. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a sentence to be tailored to the needs of young adults and other offenders. The National Offender Management Service will improve the way that we manage all offenders, including young adults.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he however agree that this report makes depressing reading? Young offenders used to be treated as a specific group with specific regimes and more funding. Now we read that they are kept in poor conditions with frequent moves, held far from their homes with restricted education and training and have a reconviction rate of more than 70 per cent.
	Does the Minister accept that in their manifesto before the last election, the Government pledged to improve treatment for 18 to 20 year-old offenders? Do the Government yet have any plans to do that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Baroness said about the report making depressing reading. The population of 18 to 20 year-olds in prison at the end of October was 8,450. It is true that that is 2 per cent less than a year ago, but that is an enormous percentage of the total prison population, and the reoffending rate is high. In fact, 63 per cent of offenders are unemployed when they are first arrested. So the situation is not good.
	However, we have been doing things to assist with the situation. I fully accept the point about the manifesto commitment, but in many ways that has been overtaken by events. It was the decision of this House to create a new sentencing framework in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A project board has been set up to consider how that is to be brought in. It will work to establish a strategy for managing young adult offenders. It will cover many, if not all, of the issues raised by the report of the Prison Reform Trust. At the end of October the first consultation workshop was held as regards bringing this into operation, and it included representatives from the voluntary community sector such as the trust.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the ring-fencing of resources for juveniles and those under the age of 18 is being done at the expense of the 18 to 20 year-old group for which there is a manifesto commitment, which has not been entirely overtaken by the change in proposed administration of the system?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not seeking to make excuses about this. The situation is not a good one. A lot of work is going on, particularly in the five larger young offender institutions where there has been considerable investment in the past four years in addition to other areas of the programme. It is true that there is a wider investment programme, but there have been programmes specifically for young offenders.
	They will benefit from the fact that this year alone £122 million will be spent on education and training for offenders; young offenders are a particular target. I am not using the excuse of the 2003 Act, but it changes the situation somewhat. The project board has been set up specifically to drive this forward, so there will be rapid progress in the future.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of YMCA England, which works quite extensively with young offenders in prison. Does my noble friend not agree that when one begins to talk in any kind of depth with young people who are in prison and begins to hear the reality of the circumstances in which they grew up, one realises that it would be a miracle if they were not in trouble? If we were starting from scratch we would not have at all the kind of institutional inheritance that we have. As many of the staff in prisons will say, the last place that these people should be is in prison. They need all kinds of support, encouragement and help to become positive citizens and to begin to understand themselves as people and to feel that anyone cares.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept what my noble friend says. Indeed, in a way, this House spent four hours yesterday evening debating this very issue; that is, alternatives to prison. We made it very clear: too many young offenders, like too many others, are in prison for short sentences, which is an absolute waste of time. I think that there is consensus on that.
	One of the issues raised in yesterday's debate—I referred to the pilot in Liverpool and I heard the judge being interviewed on the radio this morning—and being taken forward is to look for alternatives in which the public will have confidence; that is, community alternatives for offenders that engender public confidence, which is a route to stopping the wrong people, such as those young people, going to prison.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister know how many more people are getting qualifications while they are in prison? As most of their crimes are economically based, giving them a way of obtaining an income other than crime should be a very good way of stopping them.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, absolutely. I regret that I do not have anything with me on that, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the short term we are stuck with a certain number of young people in prison. Can the Minister give us any good news of special measures being taken to cope with the vulnerability of young people who are away from home for the first time, or who have never had a home, and are particularly subject to bullying and the risk of suicide?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, without going through a great list, I can tell the noble Lord that there has been a training programme for people who deal with young offenders in prison and institutions. I understand that now there are at least two trained people in every institution who train staff so that they are able to deal with young offenders. These are special circumstances, so that is one area in which staff are properly trained in dealing with young offenders.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, can the Minister give further clarification on his comments on the Criminal Justice Act 2003? He appeared to say that the provisions on sentencing in that Act would supersede the commitment made by the Government in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2001 to abolish detention in a youth offender institution and replace it by detention and training orders. If that is the case, I would be exceedingly concerned. Can the Minister clarify the matter?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I took the view originally that that was what this Question was about. Although the Question is about the Prison Reform Trust report, this is an important issue.
	The noble Baroness asked me specifically about the commitment given to prepare a Prison Service order covering young adults before abolishing the sentence of detention in a young offenders' institution. Our view is that that has been overtaken by events; that is, by the decision of the House to create a new sentencing framework in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as well as by our proposals to improve offender management. The project board has been set up specifically to deal with young adults in the light of all those changes and the views of those currently being consulted. Obviously, there is a time lapse. The timetable for bringing into force the different parts of that Act is still being looked at by the Government.

Casinos

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what basis the operators to run the new "super" casinos outlined in the Gambling Bill will be selected; and what criteria will be used in the geographic positioning of each casino.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have announced that to minimise the risk of problem gambling we will limit the number of regional casinos in the first phase to eight. We will consider whether consequential changes are necessary to avoid proliferation of large and small casinos. Work is currently under way on the amendments to the Gambling Bill necessary to achieve that, and we will bring them forward as soon as possible.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he give a firm assurance that before any of those casinos are constructed a full assessment will be carried out for each potential site to determine the economic, employment, infrastructural and anti-social behaviour impact? What process will be used to ensure that the views of local people are listened to?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, an assurance that care will be taken and that all the factors he listed will be taken into consideration. I cannot give him an assurance on how that will be achieved because we are still working on it. However, all the things he mentioned will happen.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Gambling Bill. Is my noble friend aware of the almost universal welcome given to the Government's decision to limit the number of regional casinos to eight? That is very much in line with the recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee because generally it was felt that this would allow one or two depressed seaside resorts to benefit from substantial programmes of regeneration and will, as my noble friend has said, avoid the problems of proliferation which would otherwise have taken place.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to commit myself to whether any of those eight will be located in any particular seaside resort or in any other place. The idea is that the eight projects will form an experiment to see what happens with regional casinos sited in different locations. They could include seaside resorts as well as urban centres or, indeed, out-of-town centres. All of those will be examined as potential outcomes of the first phase.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, what is the Government's case for having any "super" casinos? If it is to redevelop areas that need redevelopment, have the Government considered whether this is the best way to finance such redevelopment or whether there are any better ways that would not fall to give a huge yield to these casino investors from the poorest and most addicted gamblers in the country?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have advance notice of the attitude of my noble friend Lord Barnett to the Bill when it comes before this House. It will be a pleasure to debate it with him. However, regeneration is not the only purpose of casinos. They are a legitimate form of leisure activity, which is one of the considerations we have in mind.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it was noticeable that, in response to the timely Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the Minister did not use the term "super" casinos, which is used in the Question. Is it not the case that the term "super" casino reflects neither the Government's aims, nor indeed is it in current usage among those who served on the pre-legislative committee or within the industry? Is it not a fact that the industry—including those abroad who stand ready to invest—does not see gambling in itself as the generator of the kind of moneys that would regenerate seaside resorts or any other place? Does the Minister agree that, instead of casinos, we shall have leisure centres of a high quality where gambling plays a significant but appropriate part?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I considered whether to answer using the term "super" casinos, but with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I did not really know what the term meant, so I used the term that we use in the Bill. It is the experience of other countries that if you have very large casinos, they are complemented by other forms of provision for leisure activities. To that extent, I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is right.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the terms of my noble friend's Question as set out on the Order Paper are fundamental to the future operation of casinos and their impact on surrounding communities? Given that this Bill has been subject to so much pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, is it not extraordinary that the Minister is unable to answer these fundamental questions today? We have had three years of proposals, consultations and scrutiny.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely that the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are relevant. The answers to the questions referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be available as soon as we complete our preparation of the amendments to the Gambling Bill, which will be very soon indeed.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, like others, I welcome the Government's move to cap the number of these "super" casinos. Surely the potential social consequences of these very hard gambling venues are too severe to be left to market forces alone. Does the Minister agree that the potential social consequences of "super" casinos are so severe that a period of less than five years for the first so-called "phase" would look indecently hasty?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely that social consequences are a very significant element—in fact, possibly the most significant single element of the considerations we shall take account of in the first phase. We will do that when we consider when it is appropriate to come back to Parliament for any extension of the first phase or to extend plans for further casinos.

Lord Richard: My Lords—

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, can the Minister say what powers local planning committees will have in this process?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they will have powers of three kinds. First, local authorities as a whole rather than just planning committees will have the right, under Clause 157 of the forthcoming Bill, to reject casinos of any kind in their area. Secondly, local planning committees will have responsibility for the planning aspects of the location and composition of casinos. Thirdly, local licensing committees will be responsible for issuing premises licences. They will consider the appropriateness of the premises and the benefits which may accrue to the local authority and the local area as a result of the establishment of casinos.

Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have heard two speakers from the Labour Benches and so we have had our share.

Pakistan and Kashmir

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether President Musharraf's recent visit has been beneficial for the development of United Kingdom policies in Pakistan and Kashmir.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Musharraf agreed to broaden bilateral co-operation, including on counter-terrorism, trade and development issues and against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They also discussed Pakistan's relations with India. The Prime Minister warmly welcomed the composite dialogue process and urged further efforts by Pakistan and India to find a lasting resolution to the issue of Kashmir that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she tell us whether, during his recent visit, Her Majesty's Government discussed with President Musharraf his views on the progressive role of religion? If so, how can this country assist him in that mission, which has enormous implications for peace in the region?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate will know, President Musharraf and the Prime Minister had an exchange on enlightened moderation in the Islamic world. They discussed the far-reaching measures taken by Pakistan to eliminate extremism and militancy in that country. So the general point about religion was tackled. Of course, the right reverend Prelate will also know that in the past we have raised particular concerns about the plight of the Christian and Ahmadi minorities in Pakistan.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness noticed reports of a meeting which is due to begin tomorrow in Kathmandu, Nepal, between representatives of Kashmiri opinion on both sides of the line of control? If, as the noble Baroness suggests, there is agreement between us and President Musharraf that the people of Kashmir must be given an instrumental role to play in any solution to the problem, does she not also agree that an institutional framework needs to be erected through which those views can be expressed, instead of an occasional ad hoc meeting?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not think that these are occasional ad hoc meetings. The Prime Minister and President Musharraf discussed Kashmir, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows, having had a look at the joint statement that was issued after their discussions. The Prime Minister encouraged President Musharraf to make further efforts to find a lasting resolution to the outstanding issues. Moreover, the composite dialogue, to which I referred in my opening remarks, has a very specific part dedicated to the Kashmiri question. So this is part of the dialogue between India and Pakistan, but the Kashmiri question will be one of the underlying difficulties that will be constantly revisited in the course of the composite dialogue.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, one of the most encouraging things that President Musharraf said to parliamentarians and others was that he gave a high priority to education, specifically in the Madrassahs, which have been the main source of the political extremism that we have seen. Are the Government giving the same high priority in their aid programme and in other ways to education, not only through the Madrassahs but in schools in general?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not fortunate enough to hear President Musharraf's address to parliamentarians, but a number of your Lordships have gone out of your way to tell me during the week how much his speech was appreciated, both for the breadth of the subject matter covered and for the candour with which President Musharraf addressed the issues.
	Education is a vital part of the United Kingdom's development programme with Pakistan. Our commitment to Pakistan is demonstrated by the approximately £70 million of development assistance that we are giving this year. Social development, particularly in education and health, continues to be a very high priority in that development programme.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to that reply, does the Minister agree that President Musharraf made a very favourable impression during his visit here, particularly with regard to the way in which he is now determined to tackle internal and external terrorism and the way in which he is addressing the Kashmiri issue, although he faces a minefield of difficulties?
	Did the Minister notice that in one interview the president said that he thought that inside Pakistan they had broken the back of Al'Qaeda? If that is so, it is good news and very important for us. Can the Minister confirm, yet again, that we are now prepared to give full support at intelligence, technical co-operation and military assistance levels to mop up Al'Qaeda finally in the mountains of Pakistan and to carry through the war on terrorism to a successful conclusion?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the threat of global terrorism is one of the major issues under discussion between this country and Pakistan. It featured heavily in the discussions between my right honourable friend and the president of Pakistan. As to the questions involving terrorism in its broadest sense—particularly terrorism coming over the border from Afghanistan—and the way in which terrorism and crime can operate alongside each other, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will have noticed that in the joint declaration my right honourable friend thanked the president for his courage in standing firm against terrorism, which is such a big threat to international security. There was agreement that, whatever the cause of terrorism, it should be tackled and that there should be increased bilateral co-operation, especially in dealing with the terrorist networks that we know are working in Pakistan and in this country.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, did any discussions take place on Kashmir and the cross-border infiltration from the Pakistani side? Does the Minister see any possibility of assistance through a UN peacekeeping force so that there is independent monitoring of the issue?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that my initial Answer indicated that there had been helpful discussions of the issues surrounding Kashmir. We very much welcome the fact that the ceasefire introduced in November 2003 still holds good, and we warmly encourage the positive development in the composite dialogue between Pakistan and India. However, the question needs to be resolved by India and Pakistan. It is, as the noble Baroness will know, a delicate question. We are giving our full support to the engagement of the two countries on the issue but, as my initial Answer pointed out, we hope that any solution takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Deepcut Army Barracks

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider the procedures for investigating the allegations concerning events at the Deepcut army barracks.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a civil police responsibility to investigate deaths of military personnel at military establishments in the United Kingdom. Surrey Police has investigated the four deaths at Deepcut. A number of allegations of mistreatment were recorded by Surrey Police during its investigation and these have been passed to the Army. Investigative action in respect of these allegations requires the consent of the individuals concerned. Such consent has been received in two cases, which are now with the Royal Military Police.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is she aware that, although the deaths are relevant, the Question is about more than the deaths; it is about the treatment of soldiers generally at Deepcut? Is she further aware that by setting up this seventh, limited, inquiry and refusing, yet again, a public inquiry, the Government are digging a deeper hole for themselves and compounding the damage already caused to soldiers, their families and the Army itself? It is simply not possible to resolve the appalling problems of four deaths in Deepcut and repeated allegations of bullying, brutality, sexual abuse and torture without a public inquiry. With a public inquiry, the end of this saga could be in sight. Without a public inquiry, we will have endless bitterness, anger and frustration.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government are not so far convinced that a public inquiry will achieve additional information to that already achieved through all the various police, Army and coroner investigations and inquiries. They have already reported. However, as my noble friend said in his supplementary question, a further review by a fully independent figure was announced by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the House of Commons. The Government are not complacent on these matters.

Lord Garden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this, the seventh inquiry that the Ministry of Defence has put together, will not satisfy people given the scale and nature of the allegations that are being made? Can the Minister assure the House that, following the Adjutant-General's concerns, sufficient resources are now being given to the Army Training and Recruiting Agency so that it can provide adequate levels of supervision at all establishments where there are young trainees?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, continual investment is being made in training establishments. As I have said, the Government are not complacent about reports of bullying and harassment. They take the reports extremely seriously and investigate all substantive allegations. The inquiry is continuing and will report in March. The Government have announced an independent inspection of all Armed Forces training establishments, including initial training and welfare. For instance, 12 inspectors from the Adult Learning Inspectorate have been at Deepcut for eight days in the past fortnight.

Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reports of how these young men have been allegedly treated is a source of deep and widespread concern? Although the House, no doubt, will be willing to accept what the Minister says about the lack of complacency, does she understand that that view is not widely held in the country?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I understand and the Government understand and sympathise deeply with the desire of the families of the soldiers who have died—and of any young men and women in our Armed Forces who are being bullied, harassed or feel intimated—to get at the full truth. That is why we have been so thorough in all the investigations. Taking the police investigation as one example, 900 witnesses have given 1,500 witness statements. That is only one of these investigations. We will continue until we have got at the truth.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, if, as my noble friend says, we want to get the full truth, what is the real reason for the Government refusing a public inquiry?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I have said, Ministers are not, so far, convinced that a public inquiry will achieve anything additional to the investigations that have reported, are reporting or will report next year.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately following the Second Reading of the Inquiries Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on Northern Ireland.

European Union

Information

Statutory Instruments

Tax Law Rewrite Bills

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	European Union
	Moved, That the Lord Blackwell be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
	Information
	Moved, That the Lord Chadlington be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
	Statutory Instruments
	Moved, That the Lord Howard of Rising be appointed a Lords member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Tax Law Rewrite Bills
	Moved, That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider tax law rewrite Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Blackwell, B. Cohen of Pimlico, L. Goodhart, L.Haskel, L. Howe of Aberavon, L. Millett;
	That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed;
	That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Inquiries Bill [HL]

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Inquiries Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Over many years, successive governments have sometimes responded to a particular event of serious public concern by setting up an independent inquiry. The aim is for the inquiry to establish the facts, to decide what, if anything, went wrong, and, if necessary, to make recommendations aimed at preventing recurrence. This is a Bill to reform the arrangements for conducting such inquiries to make them as effective as possible. But it is important to be clear on what the Bill does not do.
	It is not about inquiries conducted by parliamentary Select Committees, nor is it about planning and licensing inquiries, or inquiries set up by public bodies, including local authorities. It does not attempt to specify when an inquiry should be set up. One has only to look at the range of events that have led to past inquiries, for example, the Dunblane shootings, the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease or the collapse of Equitable Life, to see that it would not be possible to lay down criteria. In the future, as in the past, Ministers will have to consider the particular circumstances and all the options available. Ministers will not call an inquiry under the Bill when there are other investigation procedures for dealing with the matter. So the Bill will not lead either to more or to fewer inquiries being called.
	Before I explain how the provisions of the Bill work, I will set out how the present legislation developed. That will, I trust, help noble Lords to understand why we believe that the time has come for a fresh start.
	The first legislation allowing Ministers to give formal powers to inquiries of a general nature, as some noble Lords know very well, was the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. That provided for inquiries of an independent and non-partisan nature, into any,
	"definite matter of urgent public importance".
	Alongside that Act, other legislation has grown up giving Ministers additional powers to order inquiries in particular areas within their remit, such as policing, health or child protection. In 1966, a Royal Commission headed by Lord Salmon reviewed the way the 1921 Act worked. Based on that and on his later report of 1969, a 1973 White Paper set out various proposals for legislation, but these were never taken forward.
	On taking office, this Government therefore found themselves with a mixture of powers available to call statutory inquiries. These have often proved quite adequate and suitable. Thus, for example, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was conducted under the Police Act 1996, and the inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary, under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. Other inquiries, such as the Bichard inquiry into matters arising out of the Soham murders, have conducted effective investigations on a non-statutory basis since all those involved were prepared to co-operate.
	But we can see that deficiencies in the legislation could prevent us setting up inquiries in the most effective form. Sometimes this arises from simple gaps in the framework of specific powers: there is no power, for example, to call inquiries into deaths in custody, or into other events of concern in prisons in England and Wales. The inquiry into the death of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham Young Offender Institution, has had to begin on a non-statutory basis, despite the fact that there would be clear value in having statutory powers available to it.
	Nowadays, statutory inquiries can span several subject areas. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, knows well, the Victoria Climbié inquiry was set up under three separate pieces of legislation. As the statutory powers vary slightly from one piece of legislation to another, this creates potential risks to the effectiveness of the inquiry. There is also the possibility that a future inquiry might need to span both devolved and reserved business falling within the responsibility of two different administrations.
	One way of dealing with these problems would be to make greater use of the 1921 Act. But over the years, it has been reserved for the most serious issues and has not been deployed for the whole range of inquiries commissioned by Ministers. It has never been updated, either to reflect the 1973 White Paper or to take account of the most recent legislation on devolution.
	Though most inquiries are certainly conducted efficiently and effectively, there has been concern here and in another place about the cost of some inquiries. The Government are absolutely clear that inquiries must have all the powers and resources necessary to get at the truth, but it is quite proper that the best use is made of public money in doing so.
	With all these issues in mind, my department and its predecessor have been reviewing the legislation for some years. In February this year, the Public Administration Select Committee announced a review of "Government by Inquiry" and asked for responses to a series of questions about the conduct of inquiries. Many of those questions overlapped with our work. Some noble Lords gave evidence to the inquiry.
	Accordingly, my noble and learned friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor decided to submit a full response to the questions, and obtained the committee's agreement to publishing a consultation paper closely based on the responses, to invite wider public debate on the issues. The paper, Effective Inquiries, was published on 6 May. It suggested that the conduct and effectiveness of inquiries could be improved if the 1921 Act, and much of the specific legislation, were replaced by a single statute. New legislation could also codify much good practice that has grown up over the years.
	Along with requesting written responses, we invited people who had been involved with inquiries in the recent past, including a number of distinguished former inquiry chairmen, to join discussion groups. The discussions and written responses showed general support for the views expressed, as set out in the summary of responses that we published on 28 September. We have also worked closely with the devolved administrations to create a system that takes account of their responsibilities.
	Accordingly, we are now in a position to propose legislation that will provide a comprehensive statutory framework for major inquiries across the United Kingdom. The Bill is suitable for the whole range of major inquiries. We want the benefits of this framework to be available as soon as possible for any future inquiries that may be called.
	I shall now give a little information about some of the detailed provisions of the Bill and refer noble Lords to the Explanatory Notes we have published for more information.
	Clauses 1 to 13 deal with the process of setting up and running an inquiry. They set out a clear structure to the process for all inquiries, while recognising that the factors to take into account in decision-making will vary from case to case. The power to establish an inquiry, set out in Clause 1, is deliberately drawn to cover a wider range of inquiries than is covered by the 1921 Act, and covers all the areas where an inquiry might be needed. But, as I have already indicated, that does not imply any intention to call more major statutory inquiries. Many smaller or more localised inquiries, and indeed some larger ones, are set up very effectively on a non-statutory basis or under more general powers, such as Section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977. It is not our intention to bring all those within the more formal regime of the Inquiries Bill.
	Clauses 7 and 8 impose requirements on the Minister to have regard to the need for expertise and impartiality in making appointments to the inquiry panel. Clause 9 concerns the arrangements for the appointment of judges to inquiries—a matter on which, as noble Lords will know, there have been discussions during our consideration of the Constitutional Reform Bill. I have no doubt that we shall discuss this further in our consideration of the present Bill.
	Clauses 14 and 15 give a new power, to convert another type of inquiry into one under this Bill. There is no present intention to use this power for any statutory inquiry already running; these will continue as if under their present legislation. However, the power will provide flexibility in the future. In particular, an inquiry set up on a non-statutory basis could be converted to provide it with statutory powers to compel witnesses, if it became necessary.
	Clauses 16 to 21 cover the inquiry proceedings. They will be supplemented by rules of procedure made under Clause 38, which should contribute significantly to the effectiveness and smooth running of future inquiries. Rules could cover such topics as the arrangements for cross-examination of witnesses and the extent of legal representation. It is my intention to provide a memorandum setting out more detail on the expected content of the rules before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. There are separate rule-making powers for the devolved administrations.
	Clause 16 also introduces an important new duty on inquiry chairmen—to conduct proceedings to avoid unnecessary cost to all participants, whether or not financed by public funds. I am sure that noble Lords will see the sense of this.
	Clauses 17 and 18 cover public access to inquiry hearings and to evidence. We aim to create a flexible framework and to set out what factors can be taken into account in decisions on this. Whether or not a particular inquiry should be held in public or in private can sometimes be controversial, and I am sure that noble Lords will wish to look closely at these provisions. However, I remind noble Lords that it is far from unusual for inquiries to be held with some degree of privacy. More than a third of the major inquiries held since 1990 have had some sort of restrictions on public access, for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes the Minister setting up the inquiry has chosen these restrictions; in other cases, it has been the chairman's decision.
	Clauses 19 to 21 cover the powers that an inquiry can use to require the production of evidence; they are quite similar to the provisions of existing legislation. These powers can be exercised only within the terms of reference. Later clauses cover enforcement.
	Clauses 24 to 28 deal with inquiries by or involving devolved administrations, and have been agreed with them. A Sewel Motion will be brought before the Scottish Parliament in respect of their application to Scotland.
	Many of the remaining clauses deal with further details of inquiry procedures and funding. Clause 35, for example, aims to ensure that challenges to inquiry procedures will come before the courts promptly, minimising the potential for disruption and delay. There are general provisions on legal costs, which will be dealt with in more detail in rules of procedure. Some of these clauses in fact reflect recommendations of the 1973 White Paper.
	I think that I have said enough about these proposals; it is now for your Lordships to consider them. I know that many noble Lords here today have experience and knowledge of inquiries, and naturally I look forward to hearing those voices of experience. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we broadly welcome the Bill. We believe that it simplifies and consolidates existing legislation on public inquiries, and that this is a desirable objective. But, as is to be expected in cases of this kind, we have a number of concerns.
	It is clear that someone must initiate a public inquiry, and that person will almost always be a Minister. The only serious alternative to a ministerial inquiry would be an inquiry by a parliamentary Select Committee, and such Committees do carry out some investigations. However, there are serious defects in that procedure. That became evident to me when, as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I looked at the handling of complaints against Members of Parliament by the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the House of Commons. The cross-examination of witnesses by committee members was chaotic, and to be effective, a committee would have to appoint counsel to cross-examine witnesses, as happens with committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives in the USA.
	If the Minister, therefore, is the person to initiate an inquiry, it seems a necessary conclusion that the Minister must also be the person who decides on the terms of reference. It would be wrong to give an outside body power to impose terms of reference on an unwilling Minister. That would discourage Ministers from setting up inquiries which are usually set up in response to public demand.
	We have received some briefings which are critical of the Minister's unfettered power to decide the terms of reference, but no viable alternatives have been suggested. It is, of course, plain that the Minister should consult widely on the terms of reference, but it is right that the ultimate responsibility should rest with the Minister, who is accountable for his or her actions in office to Parliament and the electors.
	One concern is that the Bill provides no role for Parliament. At present, there is no need for parliamentary authority for an inquiry unless the inquiry is being set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, in which case resolutions of both Houses are needed. But, as the Minister pointed out, that Act has been used infrequently—only 24 times, in fact, since 1921. The only current inquiries held under the Act are the Bloody Sunday and Shipman inquiries.
	Most inquiries are non-statutory or come under other statutes containing powers to set up an inquiry. I therefore do not believe that there is a general necessity to obtain parliamentary endorsement for the setting up of an inquiry. That is an executive, not a legislative, act. But Parliament should be kept informed, and I believe that whenever an inquiry is set up, the Minister should be required to lay before Parliament a Written Statement on the terms of reference, the setting-up date, and the names of the chairman and of any other panel members who have been appointed before the date of the statement.
	There is one issue on which I have somewhat more concern about the lack of parliamentary involvement. Under the Bill, any inquiry, including those which until now have been non-statutory, can require the production of evidence or documents under Clause 19. Failure to do so is an offence under Clause 32, and could be dealt with by a court as contempt under Clause 33.
	An inquiry is not a court, and the effect of the legislation will be that the chairman of the inquiry can insist on the production of evidence and documents which the Minister could not obtain directly by other means. That seems, at first sight, to raise some constitutional concerns. I would have been tempted to insist that the notice under Clause 19 should require some kind of parliamentary authority. However, the current position is that most, if not all, statutory provisions for inquiries—such as the ones mentioned by the Minister and Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972—provide that evidence can be obtained for an inquiry and do not require any prior authority from either Parliament or a court. It would be difficult to justify imposing an obligation to obtain parliamentary orders where no such obligation now exists, or to treat some inquiries as requiring such authority but not others. I may well put down an amendment to obtain a further debate on this serious issue in Committee.
	There is one other issue which I regard as probably the most important; it is the most serious criticism of the Bill. I refer to the nature of the power to maintain secrecy by restricting public access to the hearings and the evidence and, more importantly, by the possibility of withholding parts of the report from publication. I can of course see circumstances in which withholding evidence or part of the report could be justified. For example, that might apply on questions of national security or when a report contains information about a vulnerable individual. But I believe that the powers in the Bill are too wide in that regard. Since the whole purpose of the inquiry under Clause 1 is to investigate matters of public concern, there must be a strong presumption that reports should be published in full in order that public concern may be either allayed or shown to be justified.
	Therefore, the powers in the Bill to maintain secrecy over evidence or over parts of the report are too wide and need further restriction. In particular, I should like evidence and reports to be brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, so that after the report has been published, any withholding of documents or of unpublished parts of the report can be challenged before the Information Commissioner. I also believe that reports, as with the initial statement, should be laid before Parliament when published.
	I have a number of other points. First, the Bill contains no power to modify the terms of reference after the inquiry has begun. It is not uncommon to find that after the inquiry has started there is a need to extend its scope. I can see advantages in allowing the Minister to vary the terms of reference during the course of the inquiry, if that is done at the request or with the consent of the panel. It has been suggested that the Minister could achieve that result by terminating the existing inquiry and restarting with new terms of reference, but that seems an altogether unnecessarily complicated procedure. Secondly, there are concerns about the power to convert existing inquiries to inquiries conducted under a different set of rules and, perhaps, with different terms of reference.
	I have one or two minor matters to raise, but I do not believe that they are worth raising today. I shall raise them in Committee. This is a useful Bill that will improve our system of inquiries, but it contains issues that will need further examination in the later stages of its passage through your Lordships' House.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, unhappily, as I respect the way in which the Minister handles so many issues in this House, I must be less welcoming to the Bill than the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. My first anxiety relates to the publication and consideration of the Bill at this stage, when the consideration of the whole topic by the Public Administration Select Committee has not concluded its examination or report. It has had to resort to delivering a letter, which reached me this morning and which I have copied for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, so that he may be aware of it. I cannot understand the need for the helter-skelter rush towards this House with this legislation.
	On 6 May, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his foreword to the consultation document, said:
	"We will be co-operating fully with the Select Committee's investigation, and hope and expect that useful conclusions will flow from it".
	Therefore, it seems premature in the extreme to offer his own approach to the matter without awaiting the arrival of those conclusions. They are of enormous importance. The committee will take account of the evidence given to it by my noble friend Lord Norton, as well as by myself, which was printed only in September. The matter is very serious and casts a shadow over the whole of the Bill.
	The second matter relates to my anxiety that the belief here is that long and substantial legislation will solve most of the problems that have arisen with inquiries. In my judgment, almost all the problems that have arisen are not addressed by the Bill. The Bill, although difficult to challenge intellectually, is enormously comprehensive and a manifestation of what I call "legislative lust". The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, not long ago wrote an article that will take us into fanciful territory. He said, of the Queen's Speech:
	"My fantasy is of a speech in which her Majesty announces NO legislation for a whole session, an opportunity to draw breath and consider maturely what we have, rather than . . . debate what we think we must need".
	Considering that, as the Minister explained, deliberations have been going on with regard to the subject of the Bill since at least 1973, a few weeks more to listen to the Select Committee in the other place would have been prudent, to say the least of it.
	My other anxiety is that the structure of the legislation is psychologically linked with another contemporary disease, which I call "giantism"—the belief that by rolling everything up under one great umbrella one somehow provides a framework for issues to be addressed sensibly. I cite in that regard Ofcom, Ofwat, Of-everything, Oftoff, as well as the structure to consider human rights in the field of sex, disability, race and perhaps, who knows, religion as well. The Bill suffers from that misapprehension. It also disturbs the existing landscape. Schedule 3 repeals provisions from almost every regulatory statute that exists. People working in the fire service or the police have become accustomed to working within the legislative framework that they have. They will come to this Bill wondering where to start. So I am anxious about the entire psychology behind the Bill.
	Another disturbing feature, which is a consequence of the same approach, is the impact of the Bill on some of the people most concerned about these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to representations that he had received from Northern Ireland and from Justice, all of which perceive a conspiracy theory behind the Bill. They believe that it extends the powers of government into every nook and cranny and enables government Ministers to override provisions that they ought not to be able to override.
	I would not go as far as that, but I have had an intimation from someone with long experience of many years of inquiries of the kind dealt with in the Bill. I do not think that I can identify him, because I have not been able to establish his consent. This man of immense reason, discretion and wisdom sent me this comment:
	"The arrogant authoritarianism of this proposed measure peers out from beneath every slippery stone in it".
	That is a notable mixed metaphor—but if that is the impact on a mature judge, one can well understand the impact on more ordinary citizens.
	The Bill gives powers to the Minister to dismiss, replace, regulate and inhibit access and, above all, limit publication. The definition of "Minister" includes any and every Minister of the Crown, whatever his status. That really is granting a huge blank cheque over "independent public inquiries". I rather wonder at the comparison between the upheaval that has been taking place in the Lord Chancellor's Department in order to ensure the separation of powers and the intermingling of powers in this Bill. Powers to change the structure of an inquiry, to change its terms of reference and to sack the chairman or replace him are all in the hands of the Minister—albeit that when he sacks the chairman he is at least obliged to consult the chairman. There is a remarkable comparison to be made with the way in which the Government have approached the larger question.
	I share in particular the concern about the power to limit publication expressed by the noble and learned Lord—I keep on calling the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, learned, and he is when he is not in this House. I can cite my own experience in one of the inquiries with which I was closely concerned into the events at Ely hospital 30 years—a long time ago. We were appointed by the Welsh board of health. We delivered our report and were confronted by the entire board, who suggested that we should rewrite it with a summary of the central conclusions, as that was all that they expected. My colleagues and I resisted that invitation. We produced a report along those lines, but we included in it a closing paragraph to say that we could not refrain from protesting at the editorial influences that had been brought to bear on us, which we considered we must draw to the attention of a wider public. Happily, all the material was transmitted to Richard Crossman, one of whose most notable acts was to publish the whole of our original report. Therefore, it is understandable that there should be anxiety about the extent of that power.
	I also share the concern expressed by the Commons Public Administration Committee at the disappearance of the 1921 Act. I do not argue at all with the fact that it may need to be brought up to date, but I believe that the existence of a power that can be exercised by Parliament, and only by Parliament, remains useful. It is, incidentally, an answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord and, indeed, by the Minister herself, about the shortcomings of parliamentary Select Committees. I entirely agree that, in the investigation of misbehaviour and misdeeds, having the power of cross-examination scattered among 12 Members of the Committee does not induce successful cross-examination. However, I believe that Parliament should retain the right to play a part in the appointment of more important inquiries of this kind.
	The real problems with which we should be concerned arise not from the absence of rules but almost always from the failure of judgment in the exercise of existing conventions and rules, either in the appointment of the inquiry or in the performance of the members of the inquiry. A host of inquiries are conducted without regulation from outside and give rise to no complaint. I refer to those in the health service and many other specialised services. However, one must acknowledge that those that have given rise to anxiety are principally those under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott, and, at least in relation to expense, that under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville.
	Some of the most important inquiries conducted under the 1921 Act—for example, the Aberfan inquiry, which dealt with a very sensitive issue—were conducted without any public complaint about it at all. I had the privilege and burden of appearing before that inquiry. The Waterhouse inquiry, which examined immensely sensitive matters in north Wales, was again appointed under the 1921 Act but was conducted without complaint of injustice. The faults, if I may summarise them briefly, have been the shortcomings of judgments given by solo chairmen. That applies to the Hutton inquiry and to the Scott inquiry. I am glad to note that the Public Administration Select Committee recommends a wider inquiry.
	I shall not dwell on the extent of the powers given to the Minister under the Bill, but it seems to me that they go a great deal too far and deserve a great deal more examination. The remedy that is needed—we may be part of the way towards achieving it—is the existence in government of a unit with specialised knowledge drawn from the experience of years—which I have been told now exists in the Cabinet Office. It would avoid the faults of appointing the wrong people and appointing a wrongly composed tribunal. If that wisdom is available, the need for such detailed regulatory control is not made out, and certainly it has not been made out in a manner that satisfies both Houses of Parliament. The Commons Select Committee is still considering the matter.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I certainly cannot speak about this Bill with the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. However, I have to ask at the outset: why are Bills now brought before this House—I have been associated with another place and here for more than 20 years—that are little more than frameworks for legislation? The problems do not appear to be thought out and understood before those Bills come before this House.
	I envisage that with this legislation we shall find ourselves in a similar situation to that which occurred when the Civil Partnership Bill was brought before this House. Literally hundreds of government amendments had to be tabled before we could get something that made the slightest sense—not that I think that measure is a great asset but that is another matter. It is important to bear in mind that this Bill puts in place a framework of procedures for setting up inquiries but it does not give guidance regarding the circumstances in which an inquiry should be set up. There are no criteria save for those in Clause 1. The power to establish an inquiry is left entirely to the relevant Minister and there are two considerations only—that,
	"particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or . . . there is public concern that particular events may have occurred".
	I believe that we need something much more specific regarding why an inquiry should be established in the first place.
	Thereafter, everything is the gift of a Minister. As a consequence of that nothing would, for example—I refer to something that was mentioned in your Lordships' House earlier today—guarantee the holding of a Deepcut inquiry. There is nothing that would restrict expenditure on something like the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Recently I read an article in the Independent in which Queen's Counsel who were engaged in that £155 million inquiry said that it had cost far too much.
	If we do not have control, that may not appear here in England or, indeed, perhaps in Wales and Scotland, to have the far-reaching effect that it would have in Northern Ireland where, unlike the other three regions, there is a degree of corporate responsibility and one might reasonably expect that a Minister would consult his colleagues before deciding to have an inquiry. But would that happen in Northern Ireland? I fear that it may not. I cite an example of the kind of thing that may happen. I draw attention to the Parthian shot of Minister Martin McGuinness when the Assembly was being wound up. Without any consultation whatever with colleagues and without any sense of corporate responsibility he made a decision which had a far-reaching effect on education, and especially on that particularly successful stratum of education—our grammar schools in Northern Ireland. That was highlighted by the response to a question that I asked on whether an infrastructural audit or cost assessment had been carried out in respect of some of the proposals that were brought forward. I was told that there had been no such infrastructural audit or cost analysis. I am sorry if I appear to stray but I consider that this is a very good example of arbitrary activity by a Minister in Northern Ireland. I can find nothing in this Bill that guarantees that we will not find ourselves going down that road.
	Perhaps Clause 24(7)(c) should be amended so that nothing could happen in Northern Ireland without a prior seal of approval from the First and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly. To fail to put in that safeguard would lead to a form of almost legalised anarchy in terms of some of the problems that could arise because of the particular nature of proposed devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	I turn to a related matter. Although this Bill imposes geographical restrictions—we deal differently with Wales, with Scotland, with England and with Northern Ireland—there is no restriction on areas of responsibility, so that we could find, for example, a finance Minister triggering an inquiry on a matter that related specifically to health. Or we could find the Minister with responsibility for health triggering an inquiry that was to do specifically with an employment, environmental or educational matter. That surely is not going to be of any advantage to those of us who live in Northern Ireland and want to see devolved government brought forward in some sort of constructive way, where we reduce the tension between our traditions in Northern Ireland rather than put a dangerous weapon in the hands of an unscrupulous Minister. Let us remember that the way in which our Ministers will be appointed—on a d'Hondt system—does not give the corporate responsibility that one might expect an opportunity to flourish.
	I shall refer briefly to one or two other issues. I am concerned by the compulsion that Clause 19 may place on people to come before an inquiry and be obliged to participate in it without the safeguards that those people would have if they were forced to come before a court. I think that there is a difference and I should like to see introduced into the Bill some safeguards.
	Can the Minister assure us that inquiries will be able to be as independent as we would like them to be? We know that if we were appointing a judicial figure, as in the case of the Hutton inquiry, we would be very likely to find someone who would not be swayed by supposition, conjecture or media speculation, but in the type of inquiry as is envisaged, it is possible that that would happen. We need reassurance on that.
	I am unhappy with that as I am with many other issues. I am unhappy mostly that this Government seem determined to bring forward Bills that are not complete and do not give us a reasonable basis for amending them in the first place.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, while I share some of the reservations which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe has expressed, it would be churlish of me not to say that I welcome this Bill. If I have a grumble about it, I would have preferred it to have been in place some years ago, when I had cause to want to have some of the powers that are included in it.
	That the public have preferred discretionary inquiries in the past seems a perverse reaction. As soon as one decides that a statutory inquiry is required, for perverse reasons, the public do not like it. I shall come to a particular example of that. So I am pleased to see this Bill before us and I hope to participate in Grand Committee as it passes through this House.
	Until relatively recently, I was engaged in an inquiry in Scotland, appointed by the First Minister of Scotland and the Presiding Officer, into the cost overrun of the new Parliament building at Holyrood, which went from a mere £50 million to £431 million, and it was running three years late. In such circumstances, I was appointed on a non-statutory basis. I do not criticise the Scottish First Minister for that. I did not want to have powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act because I feared that I was likely to have something like nine Silks in front of me. The cost of that to the public purse would have been very considerable indeed. Particularly as it was an inquiry that was looking into the cost of things, it seemed to be incumbent on me to attempt to keep costs down to the minimum.
	But I encountered a problem. It came to my notice that the BBC had a film of the late Donald Dewar and the late Senor Morales, who was architect—the two key players in the building of this new Parliament. Although the BBC had this film, it refused to let me have access to it or any details of it. I could not compel it to hand it over to me because I did not have powers under the 1921 Act.
	If I had been asking the BBC to give me the name and address of, let us say, a cameraman in Northern Ireland who had had the occasion to film a riot, I would have desisted immediately, but the BBC want these films and interviews to show to the great British public this month or next month. It seemed to be positively obstructive in such circumstances to deprive me and my inquiry of access to film where the two people involved were both dead and I had no opportunity otherwise of discovering what they might have said. So I welcome the way in which the Bill is structured and the opportunity that it would have given to someone like me to have gone back to the Minister and said, "Will you give me powers to compel witnesses or compel the production of evidence, because I haven't got it and it might be vital? I don't know".
	As a rather peculiar consequence, I finished up by reporting to the Scottish Parliament in great detail, but had to say to it, "I have not concluded my report, because I cannot properly do so, in terms of my remit, until I have seen these films on the BBC this month or next month". I do not believe that the film is going to reveal anything new that I did not know, but I have to be cautious about it and take the step of keeping the inquiry open until that happens.
	One aspect that seems to have been understated in this debate thus far is the extraordinary issue of cost. The Saville inquiry, when it concludes, is going to be probably the most expensive inquiry of modern times. Whether that level of cost was justified is a very real question.
	The Bill is a little wobbly about that. It says that the chairman of the inquiry has to have regard to the costs to all parties—so far, so good—but a later provision indicates that the Minister might have to pay costs of those who appear. As I understand it, it is the cost not only of witnesses but of representation. I suppose that, if anything, I would like the presumption that costs should not be imposed on the taxpayer to be more clearly stated somewhere in the Bill. Lord Salmon said in his report that, where parties are brought before the inquiry or have to come before it to look after their own interests, the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
	That has led to some extraordinary costs. I remember with some disbelief one inquiry when an eminent Silk in Scotland took half an hour to establish that the M8 ran on an east-west axis between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It took an immense cross-examination to achieve that, particularly in view of the fact that we had all come along that road that morning to the inquiry. The taxpayer has to pick up such costs day after day, in terms of various inquiries, which is undesirable. Although I am not in favour of stealing bread from the mouths of lawyers, the House should look very carefully at the costs of inquiries.
	Of course the 1921 Act has been there, but recent modern history will establish that it has been exceptionally difficult to get Ministers of any persuasion to accept that the very wide powers given under that Act should be granted to them. It has almost passed from being a practical way of dealing with inquiries, which has led to the proliferation of non-statutory inquiries over the years.
	I have a couple of points that I would specifically like to raise. We went off the rails from the time of the Salmon report. Procedures under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act became so formalised and so like legal proceedings that they were effectively indistinguishable. I am not confident that that really helped us get to the truth on a number of matters. Once we have examination, cross-examination and rights of representation, it is inevitable that matters are less effectively examined.
	I want to see a number of points examined in Committee. I do not ask the Minister to answer them now, but I shall give her warning of them. The presumption should be clearly stated in favour of publicity for everything. The clause should not deal with restrictions, but at least start with the presumption in favour of publicity. If there are to be restrictions—there will be circumstances when they are necessary—that should be secondary. If I may say so—I had no difficulty with it—the presumption should be in favour of broadcasting. I am rather surprised to see in the notes attached to the Bill the weight given to Article 8 of the European convention. If someone can sit at the back of an inquiry, it seems undesirable that the greater public should not be able to watch it at home in the evening on television. I would like some movement that way.
	Again, I do not ask the Minister for consideration of a broader issue now, but she said that part of the Bill included a sort of codification of best practice. Clause 8 is an indication of that. If it is not a codification, it seems completely unnecessary. Of course the chairman of an inquiry has to act impartially; of course, if something comes to his or her attention subsequent to that, he will have to say to the Minister, "You will have to disqualify me from heading this inquiry". Effectively, that seems a codification of existing practice and judicial decisions.
	Am I to assume that, if something is not codified in the Bill, it is abandoned? I would not be at all upset to see one issue abandoned, and some of those who have headed inquiries hold the same view. That is the dreadful Salmon letters that have to be sent to anyone who might be the subject of criticism in the report. Nothing causes more time and delay than the requirement to put out those letters. Effectively, I had to finish my report, go through it to see who might be criticised, refer to particular passages of evidence in the report, and send them out. Without mentioning any names, another colleague of mine in the law recently had very grave difficulties over his Salmon letters. I hope that we can examine that broader issue carefully.
	Will the Minister explain very briefly the fate of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976? It provides for both mandatory and discretionary inquiries, and the relationship to it is not clear. I cannot find any reference to it. It is not entirely a non-issue; it was my problem when we had to look at the Lockerbie disaster. The inquiry was mandatory because the flight crew and cabin crew were killed during the course of their employment, but so far as the other people were concerned the inquiry was discretionary. The relatives of those killed on the flight wanted a much broader inquiry than was possible to be undertaken under that Act.
	With those observations and, I hope, some experience of what has happened in the past, I take on board the reservations expressed but look forward to participating in the passage of the Bill.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for the second time this week for having arrived late for a debate in which I was taking part. I come here by public transport, and obviously must re-examine what I thought were the already very generous margins that I allow for the time that it takes.
	I am fortunate to be sandwiched in the list of speakers between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I was fascinated by what the noble and learned Lord had to say, and look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who I think will have a lot to tell us about how we should approach the Bill.
	I join noble Lords in deploring the fact that the Bill has been brought in before we have had the benefit of the committee in another place. Given the amount of legislation that we are promised, it seems unnecessary that the Bill has been given such priority. However, it has, and I have been asked to oppose it. As your Lordships know, to oppose the Bill in this House would be counterproductive, but we have to amend it very seriously and need to devote a lot of time to it.
	I am persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it is right that a Minister set the terms of reference for the inquiry. Like him, however, I challenge the fact that the chair has no power to seek any alteration to the terms of reference, and that a Minister is under no obligation to consult anyone about them.
	We must look very carefully at government control over access, disclosure and publication of evidence. Although the chair will have the normal powers to decide whether hearings are held in public, to order disclosure of documents and to publish material given in evidence, a Minister will also be able to tell the inquiry what to do. A Minister can issue a restriction notice at any time before or during an inquiry about any of those matters for a variety of reasons, including that he or she considers it to be,
	"necessary in the public interest".
	That is a very broad term. It is true that "public interest" is to be defined or expanded in the Bill, and that is a help to us. But I am not sure that "the economic interests" of the country and "commercially sensitive information", about which I am always very dubious, should be among the items which are said to be in the public interest.
	I agree that the Freedom of Information Act should definitively be applicable to the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned laying the results before Parliament. I do not see why inquiries should no longer have the power to attribute civil or criminal liability, as in Clause 2. That seems to me unnecessary, and it is probably something which they should have the power to do. I do not like the Minister having the power to stop an inquiry before it has delivered a report and not having to give any reason for doing so.
	I have already mentioned the proposal that it should be possible to withhold evidence from an inquiry in order to avoid the risk of damage to the economy. I find that very difficult to swallow.
	I turn to the limitations on inquiries in Scotland and Wales and the fact that, on the whole, there are all kinds of things which they are not allowed to consider unless they specifically involve Scotland and Wales, the same being true of Northern Ireland. I believe that that is probably unnecessary, and we need to look at the matter in detail.
	We also need to consider the danger to existing inquiries. The Minister will have the power to convert any existing inquiry involving public concern to one governed by the Inquiries Act and to alter the terms of reference. The Minister can also sack any member of the inquiry panel on a number of grounds. Thus, if a Minister does not like the way in which an inquiry is developing or how a member is acting, he or she can change it, even applying the Act retrospectively.
	I believe that the Inquiries Bill is introduced at the wrong time. In conception, it is probably a good idea, but it appears to contain an enormous amount of very strong anti-public interest and anti-public access clauses, at which we need to look very carefully before we allow it to pass into law.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this is a relatively short Bill and it may appear a straightforward administrative measure. However, it is a Bill of some constitutional importance and one that requires significant attention by your Lordships' House.
	I accept, as other noble Lords have done, that there is a need for a measure to replace the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and the other legislation that has grown up on public inquiries. I welcome particular provisions of the Bill. However, like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, I have a number of concerns about it, and I shall identify what I believe to be the most salient.
	First, I am concerned that the Bill has come forward without any prior consideration. Given that it is a measure of constitutional significance and that the Government have published a consultation paper, I see no reason why the measure should not have been published in draft and have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has previously stated that,
	"a Bill should be published in draft form unless there are good reasons for not doing so".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/04; col. 19WH.]
	and has made it clear that it is the Government's intention and policy to increase the amount of legislation that is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill would seem an obvious candidate for such scrutiny.
	Secondly, and related to the first point, like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I am worried by the fact that the Government have brought forward this measure without waiting for the report of the Public Administration Select Committee in the other place. That committee has been examining the subject for some time; indeed, it has been taking evidence this morning. Although there is a need for a Bill, I am not convinced that the need is so compelling that it should be brought in ahead of the report of that committee.
	Thirdly, coming to the substance of the measure, I am concerned that the Bill vests too much power in the hands of a Minister and does so at the expense of Parliament. This is an important constitutional point. As we have already heard, under the provisions of the Bill, the 1921 Act is repealed. Under the 1921 Act, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament declaring that it is expedient that a tribunal of inquiry be appointed to inquire into a matter of "urgent public importance" is necessary before Her Majesty or a Secretary of State can appoint a tribunal of inquiry with the same power to compel witnesses to give evidence as are exercised by the High Court. Under the Bill, Parliament is excluded from the process. Clause 1 vests the power to set up an inquiry solely in the hands of a Minister.
	I have seen a copy of the letter from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to the British Irish Rights Watch organisation, in which she justifies the exclusion of Parliament on the grounds that inquiries under the 1921 Act are the exception rather than the rule. That point has already been touched upon by noble Lords. However, that is not an argument for excluding Parliament from the provisions of the Bill. The inquiries set up by Ministers without parliamentary sanction do not usually exercise the powers conferred under Clause 19 of the Bill. Given that, the logical read-across from the 1921 Act is to require Parliament's approval before the powers can be exercised.
	Fourthly, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, the power to cause an inquiry to be held is essentially all-encompassing. Under Clause 1, the Minister can establish an inquiry in relation to events that have, or may have, occurred and have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern. As it is difficult to think of anything that does not have the potential to cause public concern, a Minister can trigger an inquiry on anything. The Explanatory Notes state:
	"The range of inquiries in the past ten years illustrates that it is not possible to specify more precisely the circumstances when an inquiry may be called".
	The topics covered in inquiries may have been diverse, but it does not follow that one cannot generate criteria that have to be met before an inquiry is called—a point that I made in evidence to the Public Administration Committee and to which I shall return.
	Fifthly, the Minister's powers in respect of who is to serve on the inquiry and the powers that it may exercise are far too broad. Not only can the Minister establish an inquiry on any topic; he or she can decide who is on it, what their terms of reference are and what restrictions may be imposed on attendance and on disclosure of information. In certain and limited cases, there is a duty to consult or to have regard to particular considerations, but none of these provisions prevents a Minister proceeding in whatever way he or she wishes.
	Sixthly, the Minister not only has certain powers to suspend an inquiry and to end an inquiry before it has reported but also has the power to convert existing inquiries into inquiries under the terms of this measure and to change the terms of reference. That, in effect, extends a Minister's powers and introduces a retrospective provision. The scope and retrospective element are causes for concern. The Explanatory Notes state:
	"It is not intended that this power should be used to convert other types of inquiries, such as planning inquiries".
	That may not be the intention, but there is no prohibition under the terms of the Bill.
	Seventhly, not only is the Minister empowered to set up an inquiry without any involvement of Parliament; there is also no involvement of the Council on Tribunals. Instead of the council, which is independent of the Minister, having an oversight capacity, the oversight is exercised by the Minister. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 in order to bring about this result.
	In short, I believe that the powers conferred on a Minister are too extensive, cutting out a role for Parliament and giving a Minister the capacity to interfere once an inquiry has been established. Neither of those elements is acceptable.
	How are these matters to be addressed? I shall deal, first, with the issue of process. In the recent report from the Constitution Committee entitled Parliament and the Legislative Process, the committee, which I chaired, recommends that at some stage during its passage, each Bill should normally be considered by a committee empowered to take evidence. Given that this Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, perhaps the Minister can explain what plans the Government have to ensure that the Bill is properly considered by an evidence-taking committee. It will also be helpful to hear from the Minister why the Bill has been brought in ahead of the report of the Public Administration Select Committee in the other place.
	I come to the contents of the Bill. I believe that it needs to be reworked so that two basic principles can be met: first, that the basis on which an inquiry can be called is clearly stipulated; and, secondly, that an inquiry, once appointed, shall be independent of the Minister.
	In my evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee, I argued that there should be a checklist for determining whether an inquiry is the most appropriate mechanism for considering a matter of public concern. The checklist, I suggested, could cover questions such as the following. Is the problem clearly defined? Does it have clear implications for public policy? Is the level of public concern sufficient to justify triggering a public inquiry? Is there an established alternative available? Have other possible avenues been exhausted? Do the potential benefits of an inquiry justify the costs? I use those as illustrative questions, but I attach particular importance to the last two.
	There are sometimes problems with Ministers declining to set up inquiries despite considerable pressure to do so. However, there is also the danger of a Minister establishing an inquiry as a means of circumventing parliamentary investigation. The conditions under which an inquiry of the sort envisaged in the Bill can be held must be stipulated more precisely, with the Minister required at least to satisfy certain criteria before establishing an inquiry.
	In order to ensure the independence of the Minister, I believe that there must be more involvement of others in the appointment of the members of an inquiry and that, once appointed, it must be a matter for the inquiry as to how it sets about fulfilling its terms of reference. Those provisions giving the Minister power to remove members, to terminate the inquiry, and to issue restriction notices covering such matters as access and disclosure, should be amended or stripped out of the Bill. An inquiry must be independent and, crucial for the purpose of public confidence, must be seen to be independent. The provisions of the Bill do not ensure that this basic requirement is seen to be met. Given the powers vested in a Minister, one has to wonder who would accept appointment to serve on an inquiry if independence were not guaranteed.
	I would thus remove the provisions giving a Minister power over an inquiry once it has been appointed. In my evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee, I endorsed the idea of an inquiries unit being set up within government. Given the provisions of this Bill, I believe that there is a case for maintaining and, if necessary, extending the role of the Council on Tribunals. At present, the council must be consulted before procedural rules are made for any tribunal specified in Schedule 1 to the 1992 Act, it must be consulted before any exemption is granted from the requirement in Section 10 of that Act to give reasons for decisions, and it may make general recommendations to Ministers about appointments to membership of scheduled tribunals. Given the nature, composition and experience of the council, not only should its oversight role be retained, but it should also have a statutory role to be consulted before a Minister may set up an inquiry.
	On other provisions of the Bill, I believe that an inquiry should normally comprise a panel of three or more members. Although there have been some excellent reports emanating from inquiries undertaken by individuals, there is the danger that an individual may miss a particular point or may not have sufficient grounding in all aspects of the subject to be able to assess the evidence appropriately. Although drawing on an eminent person may invest a report with some authority, it may serve also to detract attention from the substance of the report or encourage critics to level criticisms at the individual rather than at the reasoning of the report. As the Constitution Select Committee noted in its report on the regulatory state, the practice in terms of establishing regulatory bodies is to appoint boards, rather than individuals, and the same approach should be adopted for public inquiries.
	There are other provisions that require attention, including those governing the appointment of judges to chair inquiries. However, I think my comments, like those of other noble Lords, are sufficient to identify the limitations of the Bill. It is clearly a measure that would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny. I fail to see why it is being brought forward now. If it is to be proceeded with, it requires the most detailed scrutiny and, I fear, considerable amendment.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said, it is a relatively short Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that that in no way diminishes its importance. Indeed, sometimes there are those who question the need for inquiries. "After all", they say, "Parliament has put in place a wide variety of mechanisms through which the actions and decisions of others can be rightly challenged".
	However, it must also be acknowledged that within both the public services and private enterprises, great powers and responsibilities are exercised and sometimes issues arise that go well beyond the interests of the individual and rightly excite serious and general concern. In my view, in a modern democratic society, there is a distinctive and important place for an inquiry to be held in circumstances in which there are general concerns that are unlikely to be addressed satisfactorily by any other means to secure public confidence.
	Therefore, I support the Bill for three main reasons. First, it really is time that the legislation was brought up to date. We need to learn the lessons of previous experience and ensure that the legislative framework serves current needs and expectations. Secondly, experience shows that there is a need to establish inquiries to address a very wide range of issues. Therefore, the style and nature of an inquiry must be relevant to the particular matter and circumstance. Thirdly, it is absolutely essential that each and every inquiry must be seen to be independent of all special interests, which must include the government of the day.
	It is on that latter point that I wish to raise some concerns on which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House. I do so because I suspect that in our society there is a long history of governments who, in seeking to tackle problems, take more powers unto themselves as a first reaction. On the issue of inquiries, governments have to exercise restraint so as not to put in jeopardy the independence of inquiries.
	Perhaps I may touch on a few of my concerns. You will not be surprised that some of them have already been highlighted. First, in Clause 1 it is for the Minister to establish an inquiry. Parliament is deliberately excluded both in the setting up of an inquiry and in the publication of the report. That issue is important because I suspect that in a number of inquiries, when the spotlight has veered towards the activities of central government, it has somehow been deflected elsewhere. Even when central government have been at the centre of the storm, somehow matters turn out to be all right in the end. I believe that it is absolutely essential that the activities of central government are subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as are local operational services. That being so, I have real concerns about Parliament being excluded and all the powers being given to the Minister.
	Secondly, the Bill enables the Minister to settle the terms of reference without even consulting the person who will chair the inquiry, despite the fact that experience shows that it is not unusual for the terms of reference of an inquiry to attract critical comment. Often the chair has to explain or even to defend the terms of reference. In my view, it is essential that there is a clear understanding and a meeting of minds between the Minister and the chair on this vitally important matter, which goes beyond the form of words, but embraces an understanding of their interpretation.
	Thirdly, the Minister can appoint the panel of advisers without reference to the chair. In my view, that both fails to recognise that the chair and the advisers have to work as a team and undermines the independence of the inquiry—a factor of immense importance.
	Fourthly, the Minister can determine when the inquiry is to begin and when it is to end. However, experience shows that sometimes inquiries have to take evidence from many more witnesses, or study many more documents, than was initially envisaged by the Minister, solely to satisfy the terms of reference.
	Fifthly, the Minister is given powers to publish the report and, in doing so, can withhold material that he decides should be excluded in the public interest. It may be tempting in some circumstances for the Minister to interpret "the public interest" rather widely. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the House that that does not encompass such matters as possible embarrassment to the government of the day. I am surprised that the Minister is not required to publish the report to a prompt timescale and I hope that some reassurance can be given on the point.
	Sixthly, although it is entirely right that inquiries should not trespass on civil or criminal liability—that is absolutely right—I could not help but note that the statement from the department that accompanied the Bill indicated that:
	"The purpose of an inquiry is not to apportion blame".
	I make it plain that if a train crashes because the driver has gone through a stop light and he is then proved to be drunk while on duty, I would expect the blame to be stated very clearly, although further issues must be followed up elsewhere.
	Seventhly, your Lordships will have noticed that the Minister has been given power to suspend an inquiry without having to consult the chair. That illustrates an important principle and a matter of concern, which is that Parliament must ensure that Ministers do not exert undue influence over inquiries. Indeed, a principal task of a Minister is to appoint someone capable of conducting an independent inquiry. That person must be accountable for the management of the inquiry and its conclusions.
	I readily accept that the Minister cannot give, as it were, a blank cheque, but there has to be proper recognition, both of the responsibilities of the Minister and those of the chair. I hope that the Minister will be willing to look to see whether the balance has yet been achieved between the responsibilities of the Minister and the chair of the inquiry.
	I touch briefly now on a point of omission already referred to, which is the report by Lord Salmon and, in particular, the so-called "Salmon principles". I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that anyone who has had to try to manage informing people about potential criticism will know of the complexities and of the potential for delay and added expense in an inquiry.
	The present arrangements seem to me to hold out the possibility that inquiries are almost never ending. That being so, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the issue will be tackled and these principles brought up to date.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I intervene to ask him a question on that. I suggest that the Salmon principles, properly applied—and I fully take the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser—can accelerate the conclusion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, for example, demonstrated in the BSE Inquiry. There has to be a balance between the two. But to discard the Salmon principles altogether would be to jeopardise the interests of individuals.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. I did not intend to imply that the Salmon principles should be abandoned. Far from it; there are issues of justice and fairness that have to be properly taken into account. But the way the Salmon principles are framed can lead to inquiries being reopened, new witness statements being taken, new evidence received and witnesses being recalled. The list can go on and on unless these matters are addressed. I make the point because inquiries have interestingly devised different ways in which to handle the Salmon principles and it seems to me that there should be some consistency in the matter.
	Finally, I repeat that I very much welcome this Bill; indeed, I welcome any Bill that is intended to strengthen and make more efficient the conduct of inquiries. The concerns I have expressed are not intended in any way to imply that we do not need a Bill of this kind or that it is not important; indeed, I believe that inquiries are essential, not only to recover public confidence but also to ensure that the public can be guaranteed that matters of this kind will be handled in an independent, thorough, careful, robust and fair way. The issue of the independence of the inquiry is my principal concern.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak only of the implications of the Bill for Northern Island. I begin by saying that although some of the concerns I am expressing may now prove premature, they are none the less valid.
	Sinn Fein/IRA is well versed in the art of brinkmanship. Its latest statements are part of the war of nerves. It will now sit back and wait for more concessions. As the Independent Monitoring Commission pointed out, it has never stopped recruiting in this past year while negotiations have been going on, and it has never disciplined the so-called dissidents whom it has done much to arm.
	The Cory inquiry, with its flawed redaction, was not a reassuring example of an inquiry set up by Ministers. The Bill we are about to debate provides that Ministers from the devolved administration will have the power to establish such inquiries into matters within their remit.
	Under Clause 27 an inquiry established by a Northern Ireland Minister must not receive evidence or make any recommendation in matters concerned with national security. I assume that that was the position before devolution. That should be a safeguard against the disgraceful exposure seen in the Cory report of a number of servants of the state who were not questioned or given any opportunity to defend themselves.
	However, the timetable given in annex A of the proposal for a comprehensive agreement provides that by early summer 2005 the British Government will introduce legislation giving effect to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. Indeed, there were to be—and no doubt still will be—shadow assembly committees as early as January 2005 to consider modalities for the devolution of those areas of power.
	In annex F of the proposals for agreement, Sinn Fein engages,
	"in the context of the enactment of the British Parliament of the legislation to give full expression to this transfer of powers on policing and justice away from London",
	to,
	"decide on the issue of policing as soon as the legislation is enacted".
	Its commitment remains conditional even at the height of the honeymoon.
	In the context of the Northern Ireland negotiations, the timing of the Bill is significant. It is a very nice sop to Cerberus. Sinn Fein/IRA, if and when it becomes a part of power sharing, will undoubtedly use the legislation in due course to attack the security forces, despite all the reassurance that ought to be given by Clause 27, for by that time it will have a presence on the police force and a strong hand in rewriting the rules. It has the agreement of both the DUP and the British Government to the transfer of powers on policing and justice to the Assembly. I think that we can expect more inquiries, although none, I fear, on the 1,800 murders committed by the IRA over the years and no inquiry either on behalf of the families of the disappeared.
	Incidentally, I do not see why, since the inquiries have no power to convict and none to determine any personal civil or criminal liability, the IRA should not be, in the period before devolution, publicly exposed in such inquiries—it is the only good thing about the idea so far as I can see—and those who have committed this crime named.
	Once the powers in the Bill have been devolved, however, it is very doubtful whether a Northern Ireland Minister in a devolved Assembly would ever do anything so contentious as to arraign the IRA or indeed the protestant paramilitaries who have committed crimes. They will probably only go for the police and, retrospectively—since by that time the Armed Forces will be being usefully employed by a sorely overstretched Army somewhere else—the military.
	In the statement on the Cory report in April, the Secretary of State said that wrongdoers would be brought to justice. I cannot but wonder whether such inquiries ordered by a devolved administration, and expressly precluded in Clause 2 from ruling on or determining any person's civil or criminal liability, may prove to be just the thing to solve the problem for the Government of how to get the "on the runs" back home unpunished for their crimes. That is what was promised at Weston Park—that there would be a brief judicial process which would immediately set the OTRs free.
	Will the mechanism for inquiries in the Bill offer a useful way of appearing to arraign them, while at the same time ensuring that no action could be taken against them? Is that why Sinn Fein/IRA is ready, once the legislation on the devolution of police and criminal justice is secure, to decide on the issue of policing? Incidentally, nothing has been said in the proposals about either the OTRs or about the right of those arbitrarily exiled by paramilitaries to return.
	In due course, although perhaps not by the Minister today, as that would be inappropriate, I should be glad to be assured that the IRA's Stormont operation and the Special Branch break-in, which put so many police officers and others at risk of their lives, will have been brought before the courts and justice done, as the Secretary of State promised that it would be. Once Sinn Fein/IRA is on the police board and enjoying the powers that the Bill will give Ministers to set inquiries going at will, three guesses as to who will be the targets. Not Sinn Fein/IRA.
	Relentless public exposure of the forces of law and order, in the guise of inquiries, who will, on the Cory model, be given no chance to defend themselves, will serve very well to demoralise public servants. I fear that the interesting reason why the Bill has been introduced now is the context of Northern Ireland and the Government's need to offer concessions.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, on 1 April, responding to the Statement on the Cory report, I asked:
	"Is there likely to be a future opportunity for this House to discuss the precise workings of the inquiries?".—[Official Report, 1/4/04; col. 1523.]
	That question was not answered.
	As other noble Lords have said, the Bill has raised many concerns, in particular the timing and the nature in which it has been introduced. Noble Lords have asked: why now, in advance of the Public Administration Committee's report? As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, why was there no provision for pre-legislative scrutiny, when the Bill seems eminently suitable for such treatment? His successor as chairman of the Constitution Committee, my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, wrote yesterday to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, noting that the Bill had not had a White Paper as a precursor or any pre-legislative scrutiny. The consultation that occurred is not a substitute for either pre-legislative scrutiny or the publication of a White Paper.
	The Bill is relatively short but very dense. It places an enormous concentration of power in the hands of a Minister. In her replies to the many bodies that expressed concerns, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has been the model of reasonableness, as we would expect from her, but not all Ministers in future or even now, when initiating inquiries under the Bill, will necessarily display the same degree of reasonableness. The Bill is likely to last for some time, if history is to be repeated.
	That concentration of powers is the major concern raised by the Bill. In the wrong ministerial hands, the Bill enables Ministers so to manipulate inquiries that more is concealed than revealed. We had an example today during Questions, when we saw the reluctance of the Ministry of Defence to be sufficiently open about the Deepcut allegations of bullying and abuse of young recruits. That reveals a much more common ministerial approach than the one adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton.
	Although no one would not welcome a Bill that seeks to modernise and bring up to date the provision for inquiries to be held, it is vague in many respects. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that it was a framework Bill and a bit short on specifics. We will doubtless address those in Grand Committee, but we hear that one aspiration is to constrain the financial costs of such inquiries. The largest item in those costs is of course lawyers' fees. Can the Minister suggest how, in practice, those will be effectively contained? No one in the history of humankind has contrived a solution to that, so it is an ambitious aspiration. For example, will there be a limit on the number of days on which an inquiry can sit? Will there be a cap on legal fees, or what? That general aspiration is far too vague, and we need in Committee to consider how that will pan out.
	So, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said, we welcome the Bill in principle, but the devil is in the detail, and that we will consider in Committee. We are especially worried about the problem of transparency, on which many noble Lords have touched. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said, there must be a presumption of publicity rather than covert operations. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, it must not be used as an excuse either to prevent the activities of central government being examined or—he put it more politely than I would—for Ministers to exempt themselves from any scrutiny. That is a particular worry for us, as is the short-circuiting of Parliament in the whole process referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. That is not good enough, and it is a matter that we will also pursue.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships who have spoken in the debate have agreed that it is now timely to reconsider the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
	I think that your Lordships are also agreed that it is a great shame that the Government did not wait until the Public Administration Committee in another place had reported on the matter. It has been examining the topic in depth, taking evidence and reflecting maturely on what ought to replace the 1921 Act. As several noble Lords have said, it would have been an easy step for the Government either to wait until the committee had reported or to introduce the Bill in draft form.
	In any event, the Bill is only a partial response to the problem that the 1921 Act was intended to confront. The Bill, adequate or otherwise—I shall say something about that later—deals only with issues that do not involve either the principle of ministerial responsibility or, at one remove, the conduct of a ministerial department.
	The core of the Bill is to shift the responsibility for establishing a public inquiry from Parliament to the Executive—a shift that is manifested in many other decisions that the Government have made during the past seven or so years. Be that as it may, how can it be appropriate for the Bill to apply where a fellow Minister in Cabinet or government has done something or not done something that justifies the establishment of an inquiry?
	Under this Bill, it is the Minister who decides whether the inquiry will be established or not; it is the Minister who decides who shall sit on that inquiry; and it is the Minister who decides what the terms of reference of that inquiry shall be. How can that conceivably be appropriate where the relevant conduct is that of another Minister or even the department of the Minister in question?
	There is therefore a gaping hole in this Bill because that whole topic—perhaps the most important topic of all when it comes to the establishment of public inquiries—is not addressed. There should have been an entirely separate clause in the Bill where the constitutional mechanism that was established by the 1921 Act should have remained. A resolution of both Houses of Parliament should be required for the establishment of any inquiry into the conduct of a Minister or a ministerial department.
	Ministers are supposed to be accountable to Parliament. Therefore, Parliament is the appropriate forum to initiate an inquiry of that sort. As your Lordships well know, in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, conduct of that sort by Ministers of the Crown was habitually investigated by a committee either of another place or your Lordships' House. That procedure became discredited following the famous—or perhaps I should say notorious—Marconi inquiry just before the First World War. Indeed, it might be said that the experience gleaned from the Marconi inquiry was one of the inspirational features behind the 1921 Act.
	It is time that Parliament reposed confidence in itself again to set up inquiries to investigate alleged ministerial misdemeanours. I suggest that your Lordships' House is an ideal part of Parliament to conduct such inquiries because it has the great merit of having a substantial Cross-Bench ingredient. Therefore, any investigatory inquiry conducted by your Lordships' House with a majority of Members from the Cross Benches would not fall foul of the criticisms rightly levelled at the Marconi inquiry.
	What better way to establish the authority of Parliament than to have another clause in the Inquiries Bill requiring investigations of ministerial misdemeanours in future to be conducted in the parliamentary context. Of course, it may be that Parliament would not always consider one of its own committees appropriate to conduct such an inquiry; in which case it could delegate that authority to an outside committee, even perhaps headed by someone who was not a parliamentarian.
	Not to pursue that approach would have two consequences. First, it would further undermine the confidence of the public in the role that Parliament is pre-eminently supposed to play, which is making the Executive accountable. Secondly, it leaves the Prime Minister of the day open to exercise his prerogative in the time-honoured way and set up the particular sort of inquiry that suits him or her whenever one or other of his Ministers is alleged to have committed a misdemeanour or another sort of wrong.
	I hope that in the course of debate on the Bill your Lordships will grapple with the crucial issue of how ministerial conduct of that sort should be investigated. There is absolutely nothing whatever in the Bill that is relevant to that aspect of the inquiry system.
	I turn briefly to the Bill itself. Just as, constitutionally, the Bill reflects a shift from Parliament to the Executive, so within the framework of the Bill we see a massive shift of power away from the person who chairs the inquiry towards the Minister. The Bill, as so many of your Lordships have said, is riddled with new discretionary powers for Ministers to override or overreach the decisions that traditionally are—or ought to be—made by the chairman of the inquiry.
	There are legion examples in the various clauses of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, rightly described it, dense Bill. But one can just refer to a few clauses to remind your Lordships of how this shift is occurring.
	It is clear from Clause 5(1) and (3) that the Minister has complete control over the terms of reference of the inquiry. I was somewhat surprised to see that because in the Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation paper, it appeared from the text that the Government were encouraging us to think that the Bill would require the Minister to initiate a period of some weeks where those who had an interest in the content of an inquiry could make suggestions about what its terms of reference should be. But that idea seems to have been abandoned in the final draft of the Bill.
	There is a particularly worrying aspect that flows from the Minister's determination of the terms of reference. Any matter considered in the course of the inquiry by the chairman, which falls outside the initial terms of reference, will not qualify for any form of financial support whatever. So even if, in the course of the inquiry, new evidence emerges which makes it essential for the proper continuation of the analysis by the chairman to stray beyond the Minister's terms of reference, the structure of the Bill prohibits the chairman from doing so.
	As your Lordships are also aware, under Clause 17 the Minister will retain iron control over all matters concerned with the disclosure and publication of evidence. For example, under Clause 17(2)(b), the Minister can issue a restriction notice at any time, before or during an inquiry, as to whether the hearing should continue to be held in public, whether material advanced and adduced in evidence should be published, and on a whole range of other matters, as long as he considers it to be necessary in the public interest. That is a draconian power where the Minister can second-guess the judgment and discretion of the man on the spot who is the chairman of the inquiry.
	Under Clause 23, the Minister will control all aspects of the publication of the final report. In principle, all reports are to be published in full. But under Clause 23(2), the Minister will have the power to retain control over the publication process. Under Clause 23(4)(b), he can withhold from publication anything in the report if it is in the public interest to do so. These powers, in my submission, are wholly inappropriate for the Minister to retain in the course of the inquiry.
	This morning we have been considering the big, set-piece public inquiries. But, of course, there are a mass of public inquiries that are set up and take place under a variety of individual statutes which are also affected by the Bill.
	The individual statutes to be repealed are set out in Schedule 2 and the procedures enshrined in each individual statute replaced by the procedures in the Bill. They cover a wide range of activities: mental health, agriculture, transport, travel and traffic, the environment, children, the elderly, the vulnerable, those in care, aspects of higher and further education, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and health and safety. Many of these inquiries take place out of the eye of the public and the newspapers and have been conducted satisfactorily for many years. The procedures are now about to be abandoned. Can the Minister tell us what consultations the Government have had with those affected by the procedures under those individual Acts? If consultations have taken place, can she indicate their outcome? How do those individuals likely to be affected by the new Inquiries Bill feel about the fact that all these procedures are to be replaced?
	The Minister is shaking her head. If I have misunderstood the purpose of the Bill and the fact that it will replace these procedures individually, I am glad to hear it. But my understanding is that it will replace them. Moreover, the Bill provides a power to intervene in any other inquiry being undertaken and require it to be conducted under the new rules. That will be so even if those inquiries have already been set up. In that respect, it seems that the Bill will be retrospective.
	In principle, we want to see a much better inquiry procedure; but in our submission the Bill does not cover the most important aspects of inquiries and, in the Bill itself, the balance between the chairman and the Minister is entirely wrong.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an interesting and illuminating debate. I had anticipated a number of the contributions, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee I have indeed read. However, the debate has been both effective and useful in that it has indicated the clear points of concern for noble Lords. Again, I might have predicted some of those. We may be able to deal them in the course of our deliberations in Committee, and some may even be capable of being dealt with in correspondence between now and that time. So I am extremely grateful for all the contributions, although undoubtedly more for some than for others.
	I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who have both chaired inquiries and therefore have a great deal to offer to our deliberations today and at later stages. I thought the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, of why Clause 14 is so important was extremely helpful and I am sure that noble Lords will reflect on it.
	I think that a general welcome has been given to what the Bill seeks to achieve, although I recognise gaps in the opinion of many noble Lords. I want to say at the start that it seeks to strike a balance. We seek to ensure that we put the right powers in the hands of Ministers to make sure that inquiries take place, with an independent chairman operating appropriately in order to win public confidence, an aim which lies at the heart of the Bill. We also seek to consolidate the relevant legislation.
	I did shake my head at the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for which I apologise because it is awful when Ministers do that. However, what the Bill does not do is take away all the other forms of inquiry. It is quite possible that for many of the inquiries that need to take place on what may be described as a day-to-day basis, the provisions of the Bill would be inappropriate.
	The purpose of this legislation is to address the kind of inquiries in which noble Lords have been involved. We heard, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, describe the conduct of the Aberfan inquiry, and the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, with the Climbié inquiry. Above all else, the aim of all such inquiries is to seek and establish the truth. They are held in order to find out what happened and do what can be done to change it. Quite often, that means systemic change. It is all about examining carefully whether the matters Ministers are responsible for are working effectively and if not, why not. To my mind, nowhere was that more evident than when I read the evidence and conclusions of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the Victoria Climbié tragedy.
	As I said, dealing with the issue of public confidence is important. First, however, I shall address what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about why the Bill has been brought forward at this time. The answer is simple: we have consulted and the Bill is ready to come forward. Moreover, we want to get on with it.
	I recognise the fact that the Public Administration Select Committee has not yet reported. On the day of the Queen's Speech I wrote to the chairman of that committee with an offer to meet and discuss this. I trust that it will be of some comfort to noble Lords to learn that the Public Administration Select Committee will have reported before the Bill is considered in another place. Therefore I am willing to assume that we shall look carefully at the committee's conclusions before the Bill returns to your Lordships' House. It may be worth pointing out that originally we thought that the committee would report much earlier. However, we were ready to roll and we wanted to bring the Bill forward. It is not meant to do anything other than complement the deliberations of the committee; hence we are following carefully the evidence that has been brought forward.
	I was interested in the evidence submitted to the committee by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which he has repeated in this House, about a checklist. I am not sure that I agree with him, but I look forward to discussing it. I do not agree partly because of the wide difference in the nature of inquiries. They are fundamentally different. Although the noble Lord expanded on the form his checklist would take, I am still not sure whether we would capture everything that needed to be considered. I was even concerned about his final point on whether it could be done better this way with public money. But even that might tilt the balance away from the inquiry. No doubt we shall debate the point.
	I was also interested in the evidence given by the noble Lord about wingmen as described in the Public Administration Select Committee evidence, along with the role of assessors, which we have tried to indicate in the Bill. We have addressed this both from the Minister's point of view to ensure that we have the right kind of expertise, as well as with the chairman and/or panel. Experts must be available from the beginning. However, I take the point about ensuring that the chairman is able to bring together his own experts and the Bill is not meant to contradict that.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, Parliament does hold inquiries to scrutinise government policy and legislation, and rightly so. They are important inquiries. But they are different from what is being proposed here. If Parliament wants to design or develop other forms of inquiry, that is a matter for Parliament. I do not say that it should not do so. However, this Bill addresses serious inquiries of a public nature that conduct the necessary investigations to enable us to make the kind of changes we have seen. Again, we will debate the point on amendments that no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will wish to table.
	I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, about expertise in the Cabinet Office. Again, however, I am not sure whether I would go further. Of course I cannot respond to the comments of the eminent unnamed person, for obvious reasons. However, I hope that the eminent unnamed person becomes named so that I can do so.
	It is also true that the chairman of an inquiry is subject to huge pressures, one of which is that one person's positively wonderful chairman may not be another's. We have sought to establish the independence of the chairman in the Bill, ensuring that the person is positioned so as to alleviate some of those pressures.
	The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked whether inquiries set up under the Bill could be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. The noble Lord knows that inquiries are not tribunals. The council has no role in relation to the 1921 Act as its main role at present is in relation to planning. However, I shall look at the point.
	I shall read with care the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, but make only one response today. Clause 27 would mean that Northern Ireland Ministers would be able to set up inquiries only into devolved matters that were already devolved at the time of the occurrence. That may go some way to alleviating the concerns of the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was concerned that witnesses in inquiries would not enjoy the same safeguards as witnesses in court. However, they will. Clause 20(1) provides that witnesses cannot be forced to produce or say anything that would not have to be declared in civil proceedings. As witnesses, they will have the same protections and privileges as those provided by a civil court.
	The noble Lord was also concerned about restrictions on areas of responsibility. The noble Lord has highlighted a real issue: inquiries do not always fit neatly into one area of responsibility. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, knows that the Climbié inquiry ranged over many different areas. However, the point about corporate responsibility is more a question of how the Northern Ireland Executive works; that is, it is an issue beyond the scope of the Bill, although I recognise the point.
	Noble Lords were concerned about terms of reference. The Bill provides that the chairman will play a role with the Minister in considering the terms of reference and that, in a sense, will give the public confidence because they will be well known. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—it had already been made to me—about changing the terms of reference when new evidence comes to light and so on. I will look at the matter again. But the way in which an inquiry is established under the Bill will give real clarity as to what it is set up to do. If the terms of reference were to be altered, that would, in a sense, change the nature of the inquiry. In that case, we would dissolve and reappoint immediately.
	I have asked for advice from my officials to ensure that that would be a non-cumbersome process. Its purpose is to ensure that pressure cannot be put on a chairman—as undoubtedly in many inquiries it is—to widen, change or alter the inquiry in some way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that if there is a train crash, we want to be clear about what happened. Inquiries are not courts. If there is a train crash, we want to find out what happened and how it happened. At the end of an inquiry, blame may indeed be fairly and squarely placed on a process or an individual, and it is then for the due process of law to take its course. The Bill is clear that these are not courts of law but inquiries into fact and seekers after truth, which is very important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred to inquiries under subject specific legislation and not having the powers to convert, as in Clause 14. As the noble Lord knows, there is no power to convert in the 1921 Act and there are no specific powers within subject specific inquiries. But they have been used in that way. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the Clifford Ayling and Neale inquiries. They were converted under the NHS Act from Section 2 to Section 84, which gave them statutory powers. It is a technical point but it is of relevance none the less.
	A number of noble Lords referred to the role of Parliament. I should say to noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—that it has been the universal practice of Ministers in this Government and their predecessors to explain to Parliament the reason for causing a major inquiry whether or not it is under the 1921 Act. I expect this practice to continue. I am satisfied that the formal resolution power has not added anything.
	I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about the issue. In the past 15 years, only four inquiries have been set up under the 1921 Act following resolutions of Parliament. In three of those cases, the resolutions were passed as a formality. The noble Lord indicated that Shipman was the exception.
	But written statements are important. Noble Lords referred to written statements both before and after. It is good practice—it happens now—and during our deliberations in Committee I will be happy to consider whether the procedure needs to be strengthened in any way.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke with strength—as, indeed, did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—about the Salmon report. We want to consider the question of the procedural rules and, as I said, I shall be publishing information before the House rises for Christmas. I very much welcome the input of noble Lords to this issue. We intend to consult widely on the rules to clarify or strengthen them, or indeed to change them if that seems to be the most appropriate course. Certainly it is an issue that needs to be thought through again and I am very happy to commit to doing that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also referred to the terms of reference. I hope that I have given him some reassurance about the way in which we have considered the issue. I shall continue to look at it. The procedure is designed to alleviate pressure, which is important.
	The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Smith of Clinton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, spoke from rather different angles about costs. Clause 16 makes it explicit that costs are one aspect—

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made the mistake, which is quite common in this House, of referring to me as Lord Smith of "Clinton". I should say that I never inhale.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. The noble Lord makes a similar mistake with my name. I am not the Baroness Ashdown. I think he is referring to his eminent previous leader, who is a dear friend of mine, but we are not related. Perhaps we can forgive each other. As I said it, I knew I had got it wrong. I shall just call him the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the rest can be put in.
	The chairman must take the issue of costs into consideration when making decisions. Clause 36 obliges the Minister to pay costs reasonably. That is the other side of the balance. Some noble Lords were, in a sense, pushing us to be clearer about controlling costs; other noble Lords were concerned that the implication of that would be that the Minister would have too much power and be able to say, "I am not doing this because it costs too much". It is a matter of achieving a balance. I think we all recognise that costs are a factor in this and that at some point in the deliberations of an inquiry—particularly at the end—the chairman needs to account for those costs. We need to be clear about what they have been spent on, and so on. We are looking for that balance and I hope that we have got it right. I look forward to debating the issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the question of legal representation. Again, the procedural rules may give us an opportunity to consider that issue and we will welcome any input.
	A number of noble Lords referred to private inquiries. As noble Lords will recognise, we have given the Bill flexibility in regard to privacy, but only where it is proportionate and reasonable; it can be challenged in the courts. We have sought to set out criteria in the Bill to enable judicial challenge to be taken early.
	Noble Lords will know that in some inquiries there are constant issues of privacy and of keeping evidence out of the public domain. This can lead to a whole series of different interventions. We have tried to ensure greater clarity from the beginning; I hope that we have succeeded. I look forward to debating the issue with noble Lords. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we expect the vast majority of inquiries to be held in public. The question of whether they are televised, publicised or whatever will be considered at each inquiry.
	The purpose of inquiries is to learn lessons; to find out what went wrong and to make sure that it cannot happen again. I would argue that there are occasions when getting to the truth may be better done in private. This is not only about issues of security—which are important—but also about enabling people to speak freely and openly and to get to the bottom of any matter. We have to be clear that we need flexibility.
	I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there have been nine private or partially private inquiries since 1990, and there have been other public inquiries but with some information withheld. I am happy to give noble Lords a list of those.
	As to freedom of information, documents given to inquiries by government departments are subject to the freedom of information legislation in any event because the departments are subject to it. Inquiry records are subject to freedom of information after 30 years, as are court records.
	As to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, about the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, the obligation to set up an inquiry means that that legislation is different. The kind of inquiry set up under the Bill is not affected by it; it sits alongside it, as I understand it.
	Other issues have been raised. We will no doubt debate the role of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament, quite rightly, and responsible for ensuring that, within the remit of the work they do, the services provided and the work of the public authorities is performed properly. That is quite central to the issue. It is the bringing together of the different pieces of legislation and will help strike the right balance where the definition of the Minister's role is substantially different.
	I know that we will debate that issue at length and I hope—as is always the case in your Lordships' House—that we will end up with a Bill that is even better than the one I have brought forward today. I look forward to it, oddly enough.
	Galileo said:
	"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them".
	I believe that the Bill will help inquiries discover the truth more effectively and enable us to provide better services for all our citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"Yesterday my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister travelled to Belfast to publish an important set of documents: their proposals for a comprehensive agreement in relation to the political process in Northern Ireland. I want to explain to the House the background and the significance of these proposals.
	"Just over a year ago, the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly changed the political landscape. Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party became the leading parties of their respective communities. At the time, there was much speculation that bringing these two parties to agreement together would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. In the months since the election, our efforts have been dedicated to building the trust and confidence necessary to enable these parties to lead an inclusive and stable executive.
	"In February, we began a review of the Good Friday agreement involving all the parties. We spent many months discussing possible changes and improvements to the operation of the political institutions. In June, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met the political parties at Lancaster House and identified four areas that needed resolution to enable devolution to be restored in Northern Ireland.
	"First, there had to be a complete and decisive end to paramilitary activity by the IRA; secondly, the process of decommissioning illegal weapons had to be completed within a clear timescale; thirdly, in this context, Unionist parties must agree to operate the power-sharing institutions in a stable and sustained fashion; and, finally, we had to create the conditions in which all parts of the community in Northern Ireland could support and participate in policing.
	"The documents published yesterday, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, represent a series of statements which would have been published in sequence by the governments and the other relevant organisations if there had been an overall agreement.
	"These proposals include commitments in the form of a statement from the IRA that the causes of the conflict would be removed by the implementation of this agreement and that IRA paramilitary activity would cease immediately and definitively, and that decommissioning of IRA weapons would be completed by the end of December this year under the supervision of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I shall return to the issue of decommissioning later.
	"There were further commitments to the effect that, after a period during which the good faith of the earlier commitments had been demonstrated, an inclusive power-sharing executive would be established in March 2005. That restoration would take place on the basis of agreed changes to the operation of the institutions under strands 1 to 3 of the 1998 agreement.
	"Finally, the proposed agreement sets out a timescale in which republicans would support policing and the policing structures established under the Good Friday agreement in the context of the devolution of policing and justice powers, as envisaged by the agreement.
	"Any observer of the political process since 1998 will recognise how significant and substantial is the progress represented by these commitments. Before I turn to the outstanding area where agreement has not yet been reached, I want to pay tribute to all of those involved. The leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Fein have negotiated tirelessly and in good faith. I have no doubt that they want to reach a final accommodation. I also want to pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, the Alliance and the PUP, all of which have made essential contributions and without which the progress we have already seen in Northern Ireland would not have been achieved. As always, our partnership with the Irish Government has been close and decisive in driving this process forward. The progress of recent months owes much to the energy and determination of officials of both governments.
	"But the House will know that, despite this remarkable progress, there remains an outstanding issue that could not be resolved; that is, the transparency with which the decommissioning process should be carried out. This issue will be very familiar to right honourable and honourable Members who have followed the twists and turns of recent years. They will understand the significance of the promise of a completion of IRA decommissioning by the end of the year. But both governments also recognise that public confidence in the process is critical to the success of any settlement and to the wider political stability of Northern Ireland.
	"For that reason, the governments set out in the documents published yesterday a proposal that we regard as a fair compromise. Under that proposal, set out in Annex D to the document, photographs of weapons to be decommissioned would be shown privately to political parties in January and would be published at the time that the executive came to be established in March. We believed that this proposal should be acceptable to all.
	"I would have liked to be telling the House today that a final, comprehensive settlement had been reached that would enable devolved government to be restored. That is the shared aim of all parties in this House and, more importantly, the firm desire of the whole community in Northern Ireland. Despite the efforts of so many, and the remarkable progress made, we are not quite there yet and that announcement will have to wait a little longer.
	"But I am absolutely convinced that the day when the final piece of the jigsaw can be put in place is not far off. I remain optimistic that we will be able to resolve the outstanding issues and to restore devolution. We have published the proposals now so that the people of Northern Ireland can discuss and debate the issues.
	"The governments will continue to press forward so that the remaining gap can be bridged. To that end, I will be meeting the Irish Foreign Minister and we will both engage jointly with the parties next week. There will also be a meeting of the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference on Thursday 16 December. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will have the opportunity to meet again at the European Council the following day.
	"The outstanding issue is about more than photographs. It is about confidence and trust between the parties. We will strive to encourage and build that trust. I know that in these efforts to move on from the legacy of the past, I can rely on the support and goodwill of the whole House. Anyone who has followed the political process in Northern Ireland over the past number of years will appreciate that yesterday was a very significant milestone in that journey towards lasting peace and stability".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am also grateful to her and her team for allowing me early sight of the contents of the Statement.
	I share the Government's disappointment, but I must say that I am not surprised because it seems to me, even at this stage, that the IRA has moved very little, if any, further forward since the Trimble/Blair/Ahern debacle at Hillsborough some time ago. I wonder whether the Government think that they have. Does the noble Baroness agree that the prime obstacle to an agreement and to an enduring political settlement remains the refusal of republicans to show openly that they have completed their transition from terrorism and physical force into a political movement that campaigns to achieve its objectives exclusively through democratic and peaceful means?
	Surely, the significant issues today revolve around matters not mentioned in the Statement, for example, the treatment of "on the runs" and Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of republican statements published yesterday in the governmental proposals. In particular, I am referring to policing and disarming. I wonder why Her Majesty's Government believe that the IRA really is prepared to disarm, when it knows that this is pointless without tangible photographic proof. The IRA is not prepared to allow this proof to be made public. Is this one more round of the blame game, I wonder? I sincerely hope not.
	Will the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal confirm that photographic evidence of decommissioning is seen by both governments as essential to the solution? Will she say what discussions, if any, have taken place with the IRA in this regard?
	I hope that the noble Baroness has seen that the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mary Harney, said that it would be wrong of anyone to assume that this was just about photographs, and that that was the only outstanding issue. I wonder what are the other issues on which there was no agreement.
	Both yesterday's draft IRA statement and the actual statement published today talk rather vaguely about the IRA instructing its members not to engage in any activity that might endanger a new agreement. Is it Her Majesty's Government's clear and unequivocal understanding that that means all the activities set out in paragraph 13 of last year's declaration, including beatings, shootings, intimidation, racketeering and organised crime? Is it also the Secretary of State's clear and unequivocal understanding that, when the IRA talks about moving into a new mode, that means the effective standing down of the organisation and that it will no longer engage in recruitment, training or targeting?
	This morning's IRA statement, which I hope the noble Baroness has had an opportunity to see, says that photographs "were never possible". Can the noble Baroness explain on what basis the documents published yesterday included reference to photographs as part of the process?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that, once the necessary legislation was passed, Sinn Fein would recommend support for the police and take its seats on the Policing Board. Republican statements say nothing of the sort. They merely commit Sinn Fein to holding a meeting to consider its position. How firm are the promises that have been given to Her Majesty's Government that the republican movement really will accept the police and the rule of law in Northern Ireland?
	Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that, until and unless weapons have been put beyond use and all forms of paramilitary activity have ceased, we will not, in this House, be asked to legislate on either the "on the runs" or "security normalisation"?

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we welcome the progress that has been achieved. I pay tribute to the patience and perseverance of both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. It has been a very long marathon for them. It is unfortunate that they have not quite got there, but we wish them Godspeed. Mr Ahern and Mr Blair deserve our thanks for what has been achieved so far.
	That said, this is yet another phase in the politics of exasperation—so near but yet so far. It is possible that agreement will not be concluded in the immediate future. Even if it is, it may not be sustainable in the long term. We hope that that is not the case but, given the history of Northern Ireland, we must be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there is an absence of any reference to "on the runs". That will have to be articulated in the near future.
	More specifically, I have a question for the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council. The Committee of the Centre is now to be placed on a statutory basis, which we welcome. Was it the intention that the committee would be able to scrutinise all actions of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or merely the functions falling under its current remit?
	I should like some clarification about paragraph 14 of annexe B. Is it the Government's intention that candidates should declare their community designation before election to the Assembly? We would have great concerns at any move further to entrench sectarianism in that way.
	We also welcome the proposals on the secretariat of the British-Irish Council and the east/west parliamentary framework. We hope that that will help to further good relations between all the parliaments in these islands. As a member of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body, I know the potential that is there; we hope that it would also mean that Unionists would feel able to participate in the work of that body. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would agree with me on that.
	Overall, so far so good. We have an exasperating few weeks ahead, but we hope that a lasting conclusion can be reached.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness the Lord President for my misnomers.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—we are all having fun and games with titles and designations today.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for his opening remarks, particularly his tribute to the patience and perseverance of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. It has been a long marathon. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that yesterday was disappointing, but it is important that we concentrate on how far we have come. Reading through the documents and thinking about where we were such a short time ago, we must recognise that both sides have come a long way and that their leaderships have made a great effort to reach the remarkable degree of agreement that is evident in the documents published yesterday.
	There are honest differences of opinion, and we have to continue to try to resolve them. It is not about apportioning blame but continuing with the process. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the Foreign Minister from Ireland, will hold a meeting with the parties next Wednesday. The intergovernmental conference will take place next Thursday, and there will be a further opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to meet towards the end of next week.
	The issue is transparency; as I said in the Statement, it is about trust and confidence. That is the context in which we are looking at this one final issue. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will forgive me if I do not go into detail on the content of the negotiations that have got us to this point. We have got to a very important point; we feel strongly that the two Governments proposed a sensible compromise yesterday on transparency and on photographs. We will continue discussions with the parties to try to resolve that.
	On the specific question of the conditional aspects of the Joint Declaration, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, raised the issues of on the runs and security normalisation. Those matters are in the context of acts of completion. That is what was agreed; that remains the position. So there will be no movement on those conditional aspects of the Joint Declaration until we see acts of completion. I am happy to repeat that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked me some specific questions. I have the answer to them in my hand, but I cannot read the official's handwriting, so I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I write to him on those points.

A Noble Lord: In your own handwriting?

Baroness Amos: Absolutely, my Lords. I think that my noble friend will try to help me out.
	Regarding the further question of decommissioning, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to look again at Annex C(5), which was the proposed statement from the IRA, where it states that it will:
	"in this new context, conclude the process to completely and verifiably put all its arms beyond use. Accordingly the IRA leadership has agreed with the IICD to complete this process in a way which further enhances public confidence and to conclude this by the end of December".
	That is an incredibly important statement. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, looks at the statement that it was proposed that the IICD should make, the transparency issues and the issue of verification are very important within that, too.
	I am hanging on, just in case I receive some clarification on that particular point.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the information on timing. Does she think that the IRA's statement this morning in any way contradicts paragraph (5), or clarifies it from the IRA's angle?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we want to work with the statements that were agreed as part of this process and that is precisely why we published the document yesterday. It is very important for everyone to see how far we have come towards agreeing on these issues. There are some 22 pages. There is agreement on just about everything bar that one issue of transparency and photographs. That is why I wish to stick with these documents and the compromise that we have reached on the issue of photographs, whereby the photographs would be taken at the point at which the arms were decommissioned but not published until such time as the Executive was up and running.
	Perhaps I may answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The issues would come before the House in the event that we reached full agreement, because a Bill would be necessary to give effect to institutional changes. That addresses the noble Lord's points with respect to the committee scrutinising all aspects of the work of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I should explain to the noble Lord that Back-Benchers can ask individual questions and have them answered.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, we all like to see progress in Northern Ireland, particularly those of us who have lived and worked there on the political scene for many years. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness about proposals by the British and Irish Governments for changes in Strands Two and Three institutions following the review found in Annex B. Can she clarify whether what appears to me to be significant embellishment of the North-South Ministerial Council is likely to usurp the integrity of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Has there been agreement by the main Northern Ireland political parties to the proposals, particularly those in paragraphs 6 to 9 in Annex B?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, will know that when we moved into this process, following the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, it became clear that we would have to tweak the agreement in some way, particularly as the DUP was not party to that agreement. That is reflected in this document. In no way is there any intention to usurp the authority or the integrity of the Assembly. While I cannot speak for the Northern Ireland parties, I am absolutely sure that they would not sign up to anything which they thought would usurp the authority of that assembly. I hope that the noble Lord will feel confident that we have ensured that we consult the political parties in Northern Ireland, because it is important that all the parties are on board.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I am grateful for the guidance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. Returning to transparency and photographs, does the Lord President of the Council agree that—bearing in mind that such an enormous prize is at stake and that there is such huge goodwill, both among the British public in general and the overwhelming majority of the public in Northern Ireland, who are so anxious to see a proper agreement concluded after so much human effort and many hours spent on it—if anything went against that, and if the decommissioning authority were to be content in the coming weeks with the proposed compromise suggestions on transparency, if anyone were to oppose that thereafter, it would be a heavy burden on any particular entity or group?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we all recognise that the issue of transparency and, indeed, photographs has been part of the negotiations over many, many months. We proposed a compromise. Noble Lords will know that that compromise was not accepted. We intend to continue to try to move forward on that particular issue. I feel strongly, given how far we have come, that there must be room for manoeuvre on that issue. We will seek to find that room. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be engaging with the Irish Foreign Minister in discussions with the parties next week. We will continue this process. We have to remain hopeful, given how very far we have come.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Leader of the House will be aware that she is engaged in, we hope, the closing stages of a process that has lasted an incredibly long time. It involved my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who was here earlier and is unfortunately not able to be here now. At the earliest stages I was involved myself in that process. That shows how long this matter has taken.
	I well recall a meeting of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body over in Church House at the time of the meeting between Albert Reynolds and John Major, in which the first outline of the agreement was discussed. There seemed to be a general atmosphere of goodwill, until suddenly the matter of decommissioning was discussed. It seemed obvious to every British Member of Parliament and to the TDs from the Dail that that was a total failure to understand the history of Ireland and a deliberate attempt to frustrate the process by raising a difficult issue.
	As she is familiar with this process, does the Minister agree that it does not matter whether the Governments can cobble together a deal or whether political leaders can be persuaded finally to sign up to it on ambivalent statements; it depends on whether it commands the trust of the people in Northern Ireland of both communities?
	Having read this document, admittedly only briefly, and having heard my noble friend Lord Glentoran comment on the IRA statement of this morning, it is clear that there are uncertainties in this document that will obviously still not yet command full trust. Representations are being made to the IRA on behalf of the Sinn Fein leadership regarding policing, without any statements on what happens if the IRA does not agree or applies further conditions. It is easy to raise all the difficulties, but there is much ground still to be covered. Because trust is so important, we can take all the photographs that we like of verifiable decommissioning of weapons, but the other word in the Statement to which the Lord President attached great importance is not just "verifiably" but "completely". There must be trust, which will not be verifiable in any obvious sense, that there has been complete decommissioning of all arms that the IRA may possess.
	All of us who have lived with the process for as long as it has gone on wish it well and hope that there will be the trust, but obviously some important issues must still be addressed. Important consideration must be given to the deep concerns of both communities.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, has been involved in the process much longer than I have. I pay tribute not only to his work but to that of many noble Lords on his side of the House who have been involved in the process for a very long time, in this House and the other place. We have built on that work.
	The noble Lord is right that trust and confidence are an issue. The response of the people of Northern Ireland will be very important in the process. We all agree that the people of Northern Ireland want peace. I have visited Northern Ireland and seen the tremendous difference made to some communities there. Those communities want the continuance of that degree of security and stability that they are beginning to see.
	What happens on the ground as a result of the process will be a huge motivator in pushing the political parties to work for greater security and stability in Northern Ireland. I recognise the noble Lord's points, but we must also recognise the push that will come from the people of Northern Ireland themselves once—I hope that it is once—we get past this further hurdle of transparency.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, have read with great interest and respect the proposals of the two Governments. I am as sorry as anyone that no decision has been reached. However, the IRA is very good at pushing us to the edge, and it will go on doing so if it can. In Annex C, it states:
	"all IRA volunteers have been given specific instructions not to engage in any activity which might thereby endanger the new agreement".
	That suggests that it is still a pretty active force.
	In Annex D, it is proposed that two clergymen be nominated to see the decommissioning of arms. If noble Lords will forgive me for suggesting it, I cannot understand why the commission has never adopted the provision made in the original legislation that two ordnance officers from the American and Canadian armies should be present because they would know what they were seeing. With respect, I do not think that even the most intelligent clergyman is likely to be able to recognise exactly how much Semtex he is looking at or whether he is looking at a rocket launcher.
	I hope that it is noted that Annex F, a Sinn Fein statement on policing, says that Sinn Fein does not intend to discuss the issue until the legislation is enacted. It always wants its part of the agreement first. Although I absolutely agree that it is vital that Northern Ireland should not continue in the present situation, the Government are right not to accept any solution that does not convince the ordinary man in the street that the IRA has not only given up its arms but stopped using them to threaten and kill people.
	One of the great things that the Government have done, which I greatly respect, is the setting up of the Independent Monitoring Commission and the organisation to combat crime. Together those two measures have done more than anything else in the past year to show that the Government are really facing up to what people and the economy suffer from the paramilitaries. I hope that they will be urged to act even further, because I still believe that the IRA is bluffing. It is communist-trained, and communists' notion of negotiation is to ask for what they want and to give absolutely nothing in return for as long as they can get away with it. So, please, be tough as well as compassionate.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I do not think that she asked me a specific question. I agree with her that there are issues of trust and confidence. I thank her for her comments on the institutions that we have set up in the past year, including the IMC. In response to her points on the document, she will understand that I cannot negotiate across the Dispatch Box, particularly on issues on which we have spent weeks negotiating.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement—we received a copy of it just before she delivered it—and for publishing the documents. The Government should be given great credit for publishing the documents last night.
	Further to the contribution of my noble friend Lady Park, it is difficult to formulate a question. I shall try to form a question from the comments that I wish to make, but I ask for the patience of the House for just a minute or two. Could we have a different format in which to discuss the documents, if we do not get what I hope will be a Christmas agreement following a Good Friday agreement? That looks very hopeful. Is it possible to get time to flesh out the points in the documents, because there are deep concerns?
	On a personal note, I was going to say that an agreement was so near yet so far, but I do not believe that: it is so very near. I am sad but not despairing. Further to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Park, does the noble Baroness believe the determination by the IICD that the presence as observers during the process of two clergymen nominated by the two Governments, following appropriate consultation, would be worthwhile? I am concerned after hearing my noble friend's points about a clergyman's ability to recognise Semtex, rocket launchers and so on.
	Secondly, is there any way in which we could try to ease the humiliation felt by the IRA or Sinn Fein because of photographs? Thirdly, I suggest to the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council that, although we are very grateful for the patience and perseverance of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, thanks should be also given to the officials for their energy and determination. They so seldom get public recognition for their tireless efforts in this regard.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I agree with her remarks about the officials. That is why tribute was paid in the Statement not only to our Government's officials but also those of the Irish Government. They have worked tirelessly in this process.
	The issues of transparency, the IICD and photographs will be the subject of the ongoing discussions, so it would be inappropriate for me to say at this point exactly what the end process of the discussions will look like. The end process would have to be agreed. That will partly be as a result of the discussions that my right honourable friend and the Irish Foreign Minister will have with the political parties next Wednesday.
	I hope that I can help the noble Baroness in her request for a discussion of the outstanding issues in the documents and an opportunity to flesh out the points in them. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already indicated that he would like to come to this House to give an informal briefing to Peers with an interest, in the way that we have done in the past. He wishes to do that before we break for Christmas. We have just agreed a date; I will get in touch with all Peers on that.

Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2004

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in 2001 the Lord Chancellor established a new regime to improve control of the legal aid costs incurred by defence legal representatives in the most expensive criminal cases. The changes were introduced in response to concern that the proportion of the criminal legal aid budget taken up by the most expensive 1 per cent of criminal cases had risen from 40 per cent to 49 per cent of expenditure on criminal legal aid.
	In August of this year amendments were made to the criminal defence service funding order and the criminal defence service general regulations that altered the definition of a "very high cost case" in criminal proceedings. This amendment followed a joint review of the existing very high cost case contract arrangements undertaken by officials of my department with the Bar Council and the Law Society. Previously, a criminal very high cost case was defined in regulations to be a case over which the trial was expected to last 25 days or more, or for which defence costs for any defendant or group of defendants represented by the same firm were expected to be £150,000 or more. The August amendment substituted the condition of 41 days or longer in place of the 25 days and removed the £150,000 estimated cost requirement.
	The Law Society and the Bar Council were consulted about the August 2004 amendments and accepted that this consequential instrument would be needed. The elements set out in the order have not given rise to any opposition on consultation, and both the Law Society and the Bar Council have been notified of our intention to proceed with this part of the package. Indeed the overall arrangements for very high cost criminal cases have been accepted by the legal profession and provide a basis on which cases can be conducted in a way that is fair to lawyers and gives good value to the taxpayer. In my view, the provisions of the regulations are compatible with convention rights. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved. [31st Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we understand that, as the Minister said, the regulations have been negotiated with and accepted by the Bar Council and the Law Society. They are an attempt to deal with a very serious problem in what seems to us, in the circumstances, an acceptable way. Therefore, we are happy to support the statutory instrument.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and have nothing to add.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys Order 2004

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3 November be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this order is presented under Section 29 and Part I of Schedule 4 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and seeks to grant fellows and ordinary members of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience in England and Wales. I shall explain the role of fellows and ordinary members in just a moment.
	Historically, the right to conduct litigation has been the preserve of solicitors and rights of audience have been the preserve of barristers and, to a lesser extent, solicitors. However, since the relevant aspects of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 were enacted, there has been a gradual extension of bodies authorised to have rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation—first, to the Institute of Legal Executives in 1998 and, secondly, to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents in 1999.
	This order, if approved, will extend rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation to a further category: those fellows and ordinary members of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys who have completed the LLM course in intellectual property litigation. Ordinary members are defined as those who have either passed the institute's qualifying examination for entry on the Register of Trade Mark Attorneys or have become registered after gaining certain other recognised qualifications in intellectual property. Fellows are individuals who, before election to fellowship, were ordinary members for at least five years, who have practised in trade mark agency work and who, in the opinion of the Council of Trade Mark Attorneys, have contributed significantly to the aims and objectives of the institute.
	The institute first submitted its application for authorised body status in June 1999 to the Lord Chancellor, who subsequently referred it to the Advisory Committee on Legal Education under the procedure set out in Schedule 4 of the 1990 Act. In October 1999, the committee advised that in general the application was strong but would benefit from further improvement in certain areas. Following that advice, ITMA submitted a new application in March 2001. This application was referred to the Legal Services Consultative Panel, ACLEC's successor, and the OFT for consideration. Both those bodies rigorously scrutinised the application and subsequently advised the Secretary of State. The advice of the panel is publicly available on the DCA website. The application has also been scrutinised by the designated judges who, on 16 July 2004, confirmed their support for ITMA's application. On that basis, the Secretary of State has approved the order that I lay before you today.
	The order will not affect the rights that are currently held by ITMA. It will enable the institute to grant to its members the right to conduct litigation in the Chancery Division of the High Court, including the Patents Court, in the county court, including the Patents county court, and in community trade mark courts; and to conduct appeals from the Comptroller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks, the patents county court, the county court, and the Chancery Division of the High Court, in respect of any matter relating to the protection of any trade mark or design, or as to any matter involving passing off, and certain ancillary matters relating thereto.
	The order will also enable the institute to grant rights of audience in hearings in the county court, including the patents county court, in trade mark and design litigation; hearings before the appeal tribunal constituted by the Registered Design Act 1949; and hearings in private on interim matters in the course of trade mark and design litigation. The institute will be able to grant these rights to suitably qualified ordinary members and fellows who have completed the LLM—Master of Laws—course. Those fellows of the institute who are solicitors or barristers may be granted an exemption from completing the course as they already hold those rights. This course will develop a knowledge base to supplement the material that is already covered by the institute's examinations.
	The effectiveness of the authorisation is currently limited by the fact that trade mark cases can be heard only in the High Court. As a result, while trade mark agents would nominally be able to bring cases in the county court, given the specialised nature of their work, it is highly unlikely that there would be any cases that they would be qualified to handle. As such, they would remain at a disadvantage to other litigators, such as patents agents, who have been able to bring patents cases in the county courts for some time. To ensure a more even balance between these two sectors, in particular, the Government intend to bring forward a separate, complementary order under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 specifically to extend the jurisdiction of appropriate county courts to allow them to hear trade mark cases. That additional measure has the full support of the senior judiciary.
	The order will allow clients of trade mark agents, who need to use the courts, to instruct and deal with one person. The trade mark agent will not have to instruct a solicitor and/or a barrister in order to progress his client's case. That could lead to lower costs for businesses, in particular small and medium-sized companies by cutting out an unnecessary tier of expense. Of course, the trade mark agent would be able to go straight to court.
	One consequence of the success of this application is that fellows who become authorised advocates or litigators may need to come within the Jurisdiction of the Legal Services Ombudsman. The Legal Services Ombudsman oversees the handling of complaints about members of the legal profession. The support and advice of the ombudsman would be important in seeking to ensure the standards of service provided by fellows of the institute are maintained. With that in mind, we are currently liaising with the Legal Services Ombudsman to assess whether or not an additional order will be necessary to extend the LSO's jurisdiction to cover ITMA.
	I should stress that the lack of an order at this time will cause no harm to clients. As noble Lords will notice, the order will not come into force until 1 April 2005, when the jurisdiction of the county courts is extended. If an order is needed, it can be laid early next year. The institute has its own complaints handling system. Complaints regarding litigation are dealt with by the litigator conduct committee, while those that concern non-litigation matters are dealt with by the professional guidance and disciplinary committee.
	Approval of this instrument will lead to a small but important increase in the number of people qualified to appear before the courts. Trade mark agents work in a small, highly specialised field and it is right that the public are given every opportunity to draw on the expertise within the profession. I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3 November be approved. [34th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I note that the acronym of the designated body is ITMA, which arouses in some of us a certain nostalgia at the thought of Colonel Chinstrap, Mona Lot and the members of the original ITMA appearing in the courts of evidence. Having said that, I can see that the order has gone through a very thorough process, and we are entirely happy that the trade mark attorneys should be given the right to appear in court in accordance with it.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and have nothing to add.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2004

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the note I have received states that ITMA predates Tommy Handley's radio show of 1934. I beg your Lordships' pardon; I am sure that is completely out of order, but I wanted to state it nevertheless.
	Freedom of information requests must normally be answered within 20 working days. This represents a tight deadline and will focus attention on the importance of answering requests. It is right that people making requests should receive a prompt answer. However, there will be occasions when this deadline is impractical. That is why these regulations will extend the deadline for answering requests in certain, limited circumstances.
	The regulations will make provision for the deadline for answering requests to be extended in the following circumstances. Without these regulations schools would have particular difficulty answering requests during school holiday periods when they would be unstaffed. This is a particular issue during summer holidays, which can be around six weeks long and thus longer than the 20 working days allowed to answer requests. The regulations make provision that school holidays should not be counted for the purpose of calculating the 20 working days, provided that the request is answered within 60 working days.
	The regulations affect archives services holding transferred public records. The extended time limit will apply only where information is contained in transferred public records that have not been designated as open for the purposes of Section 66 of the Freedom of Information Act. In these cases the Freedom of Information Act requires that consultation takes place with the authority that transferred the records on whether the information should be exempt or whether it is necessary neither to confirm nor deny that the information is held. Because of the requirement for formal consultation, the regulations will allow these archives services an extra 10 working days to comply with freedom of information requests, but only—I stress that—in these cases.
	Section 10(5) of the Freedom of Information Act allows the Information Commissioner discretion to alter the time limits for responding to a request in circumstances specified by regulations made under Section 10(4) of the Act. The regulations will allow the Information Commissioner discretion in cases where we anticipate that there may be occasions when the time limits will need to be extended, but where it is not always possible to specify exactly the circumstances in which this would be needed. The regulations specify that the Information Commissioner can extend the time by which authorities must comply with freedom of information requests to up to 60 working days following receipt of request in the following two situations: first, if the authority cannot comply with the usual time limits because it has to obtain information from an individual actively involved in an operation of the Armed Forces or in the preparations for such an operation. There will, of course, be occasions when the authority could comply with the request within the usual time limits, and we would expect it to do so. The discretion granted to the Information Commissioner is intended to cover circumstances where there are strong practical reasons why the deadline could not be met.
	The second situation is when the information needed to answer a request is held outside the UK, and the authority could not comply with the usual time limits for this reason. This could either be because the information itself is not held in the UK or additional information must be obtained from outside the UK before answering. The Information Commissioner will be given discretion to extend the time limits if appropriate.
	These regulations will not allow authorities to avoid their obligations to answer requests under the Freedom of Information Act. They recognise that in a limited number of cases authorities would have particular difficulty complying within the usual time limits for strong practical reasons. However, at the same time they strengthen the Government's commitment to freedom of information by making it clear that in all other situations public authorities would be expected to comply with the time limits as set out in the Act.
	I believe that these regulations represent responsible uses of the powers given to government under the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations make reasonable allowances for circumstances in which public authorities will unavoidably be unable to comply with the time limits provided for in the Act. I therefore ask your Lordships to approve the regulations. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4 November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry. Are the regulations and the order being taken together?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have another speech.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that originally it was suggested that the two would be taken together. I shall therefore speak only to the regulations.
	While obviously any move to extend the time limits requires very careful consideration, having looked at the limited number of circumstances in which a time limit will be extended by these regulations, it seems to me that there are acceptable grounds in each of those cases. Therefore, I do not oppose the regulations.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and have nothing to add.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information (Removal and Relaxation of Statutory Prohibitions on Disclosure of Information) Order 2004

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	I shall get the procedure right one day. I am very grateful for the way that we are proceeding. I hope that we can continue in such a manner.
	The Freedom of Information Act 2000 will offer new access rights to information, when the Act is implemented on 1 January 2005. However, in some cases public authorities are barred from disclosing information due to statutory prohibitions in other legislation. Section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State a power to repeal or amend such enactments, in so far as they apply to public authorities.
	The order amends eight pieces of legislation to remove prohibitions on disclosure. The following six pieces of legislation will be amended so that the prohibition on disclosure does not apply to disclosures made by public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act: Factories Act 1961, Section 154; Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, Section 59; Medicines Act 1968, Section 118; Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; Section 28; National Health Service Act 1977; Schedule 11, paragraph 5, and the Audit Commission Act 1998, Section 49.
	The amendment to the Audit Commission Act will allow disclosure by public authorities, unless it might prejudice the performance of any statutory function of the authority. The present sanction of imprisonment is reduced to a fine.
	Section 5 of the Biological Standards Act 1975, which relates to information held by members or employees of the National Biological Standards Board, will be completely repealed, as it applies only to public authorities.
	In the eighth piece of legislation, Section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Government felt it was appropriate for a statutory prohibition on disclosure to apply to current information because it may include sensitive information about individuals that is rightly protected from public disclosure until after the end of that person's lifetime. However, it is not necessary for that information to be protected in perpetuity. The order will introduce a clause into the Access to Justice Act so that, once information is 100 years old, it will become subject to the usual freedom of information rules and exemptions.
	I believe that the order represents responsible use of the powers given to government under the Freedom of Information Act. The order removes unnecessary bars to the release of information, and I ask your Lordships to approve it.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 November be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall take a little longer on this order than I did on the previous ones.
	As I understand it, the information referred to in Section 20 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 concerns financial circumstances, with a view to obtaining legal aid. It seems to me that to maintain the restriction for 100 years is absurd. That means that we would just this year be disclosing information about the financial circumstances of someone living in 1904. I accept that the information should not be made immediately available, but I see no real reason why it should not be made available after the usual 30 years or at the most after, say, 50, which would take us back to 1954. I have great difficulty in seeing that any application for legal aid made in 1954 would be sensitive these days.
	I want to raise a wider point. The annual report on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, published last month, states that 430 statutory provisions have been identified that restrict access to information and are being considered in the review process. The annual report states that 44 of those have already been repealed or replaced, and 37 have been agreed for repeal or amendment. The order repeals or amends eight of those 37. When, therefore, will the other 29 provisions in that group be repealed or amended?
	The report states also that 247 statutory provisions are still under consideration. It is four years, of course, since the Freedom of Information Bill was enacted, and I wonder why it is that more than half of the reviews are not yet completed. Surely efforts should have been to ensure that they were completed by D-day—1 January 2005—when the right to obtain information under the Act comes into force. Can the Minister give us any indication of when the process is likely to be completed?

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the probing and pertinent questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has associated himself with those questions because they are important. I shall endeavour to ensure that I answer them, particularly as noble Lords should know that I have responsibility in my department for freedom of information, which is an area in which I am deeply interested. I would commend the incredible amount of work that has been going on. However, enough of the fluff around the matter.
	We have a general policy for certain kinds of information; that is, a 100-year rule. This fell within that general policy. I take the noble Lord's point that one can argue that what one did in 1954 or 1984 is neither here nor there, but the way in which we have approached this is by considering the position of individuals very carefully. We live longer and longer. Some Members of your Lordships' House—not those who are present, who are very young—are demonstrable proof of that. It is important that we have a really robust timescale. The order fits into that approach. It may not be the approach that noble Lords would like, but it is consistent. That is quite important. I am not sure how many requests there would be for that kind of information in any event, but it is about individuals—we have to be clear about that—and that is the principle to which we will be adhering.
	The noble Lord was incredibly numerate in adding up the different statutory provisions. As I understand it, we are repealing as we go, looking carefully at the different statutes. The noble Lord is right that it is four years since the Act was introduced. There has been a huge amount of preparation. Some of that work has required a lot of consultation; some of that work has been taking place during the course of the last year, as we have moved closer and closer to the deadline. I make no apology for that, because that is how all organisations operate in thinking through what needs to be done. There will be further orders in 2005. I am confident that we are well placed for D-day. It is an important day. I am looking forward to working with colleagues and departments to make sure that we respond well. This order is all about better government, and we should all support it. On that basis, I hope that both noble Lords will feel able to support the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2004

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, if approved by this House and the other place, which is discussing this order today and indeed perhaps even as we speak, the order will establish an urban development area covering Northampton, Daventry and Towcester and an urban development corporation to regenerate that area. In February 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Sustainable Communities Plan. That is not a house-building programme, but a programme to develop communities that will stand the test of time and create places where people want to live. To make this happen, we are working with partners to establish fit-for-purpose, local delivery vehicles.
	In west Northamptonshire, the four local authorities requested an urban development corporation to meet the challenges that they face. The development corporation will provide the focus, powers and capacity necessary to drive forward major new developments, secure private sector confidence and maximise investment. The urban development corporation will have a number of advantages over alternative delivery mechanisms: single-minded focus; direct access to government; its own financial "pot"; relevant statutory powers; expert staff; and the ability to take a long-term view. That is not to say that the other delivery vehicles, some of which are local authority led, are any less valuable. We are seeking to achieve merely what is fit for purpose for the particular locality. The advantages that I have listed will contribute to growth and investment that is better planned, more sustainable and better co-ordinated. Of course, that is in everybody's interests.
	On 15 January, we consulted on proposals for the urban development corporation. Responses were received from individuals, the voluntary sector, the private sector, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and government agencies. The issues raised during the consultation have been examined at length by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I will save the House any further detailed explanation of the issues, but they were well addressed by the committee during a period of two weeks.
	However, the committee highlighted a number of points that I will address. First, on consultation, the committee considered that greater effort could have been made to inform people of the urban development corporation proposals. I take that on board quite genuinely and the Government will certainly seek to ensure that that is the case if there are any other urban development corporations. We have no plans at present, but it is likely that as we develop the growth area agenda, there may be two or three—that may be too many—urban development corporations in addition to the four urban development corporations that have been set up so far. Two are in the Thames Gateway; the third is technically a sub-committee of English Partnerships, but it is operating on a statutory basis on Milton Keynes to the same kind of rules. We would certainly make sure that the consultation is better and that the local authorities involved have carried out such a consultation. We will not accept a one-sentence line in a letter as being sufficient.
	Secondly, the committee recommended that the urban development corporation consults not only within its boundaries. The west Northamptonshire urban development corporation is somewhat different from some corporations, although it is not unique. It represents the three districts of Northampton town, Daventry and Towcester. They are not coterminous, but three separate, isolated areas. Therefore, it is crucial that the surrounding area is taken into account in the consultation. I will ensure that the urban development corporation's guidance and targets reflect the request and desire of the Select Committee. That is wholly right and proper.
	The committee sought a further undertaking regarding the membership of the urban development corporation. It recommended that the members of the proposed UDC should include: two members representing Northampton Borough Council; one member representing Daventry District Council; one member representing South Northamptonshire District Council—which of course contains Towcester—and two members representing Northamptonshire County Council. It further recommended that the two members from each of the Northampton councils should belong to different political groups. We are more than happy to ensure that.
	Indeed, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, chairman of the Select Committee, on 10 November, to give that undertaking. I can now confirm it to the House. I should point out that all the places on the board will be filled on merit, in accordance with the guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In other words, we shall follow the Nolan rules for these appointments.
	As noble Lords will know, the difference is that we originally proposed that only one member from each of the four councils should be included on the urban development corporation, but, having listened to the evidence, the Select Committee has obviously deemed that two members should represent each of the Northamptonshire councils. There will be other members, obviously, but there have been public advertisements and the posts will be filled on merit.
	The urban development corporation provides Northampton, Towcester and Daventry the opportunity to derive maximum benefit from the growth which is coming anyway. They are not areas devoid of growth; the question is one of deriving the maximum benefit. The regeneration tasks facing the three towns are different, of course. I am very grateful to the Select Committee for taking the time to go and visit the area. However, the towns are intrinsically linked. The objective of the exercise is to ensure that Towcester and Daventry thrive in their own right and do not merely become dormitory satellites of a growing Northampton.
	Northampton needs major physical regeneration, with large areas of underused or unused land. Of course, it has a considerable number of brownfield sites. Anyone who has been to any of the great sporting events in the area, or who has been diverted off the M1 when it is closed on to the A5, will realise that Towcester is divided by the A5—my brief says "severed". It has inadequate social infrastructure and is slowly becoming a dormitory town. I had driven through it, but had never stopped the car until a visit in relation to the issue a year ago. Daventry is much further advanced than Towcester into dormitory status. It requires substantial investment to resurrect the town centre.
	The boundaries focus development on the three major settlements; we do not seek to go into the outlying villages. As I set out in my evidence to the committee, protection of the countryside and the need to concentrate development on brownfield land will be key priorities for the urban development corporation.
	The corporations are of course intended as short-life bodies. They are there for a particular purpose—to manage the sustainable growth and make sure that we get maximum benefit from it. The typical lifespan for urban development corporations has been seven to 10 years. That is normally sufficient time to develop and implement a strategy, organise a delivery plan, tackle land assembly problems—they can be very complicated—and then revert to the normal local government arrangements. This urban development corporation will have an indicative lifespan of 10 years, but we will conduct a review after five years.
	It is the Government's intention to seek approval at a later date to give the urban development corporation powers to determine strategic planning applications. I want to emphasise that all the householder and minor planning applications will always remain with the local authority, even when we have the powers for the strategic sites. We are talking about the large strategic sites, although I fully accept that strategic sites are sometimes not necessarily the largest. It is those key sites that determine the growth at which we need to look from the urban development corporation's point of view.
	In exercising its development control function—the granting of planning permission or otherwise—the urban development corporation will undertake at least the same degree of community consultation as ordinary planning authorities. Of course, that has considerably increased as a result of the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, so a lot more consultation is to take place. Although the corporation is not fixed—a chairman-designate has been appointed—frankly, I have every confidence that the chairman will out-consult anyone else in the area. That is the nature of the person concerned, Mr Keith Barwell.
	The urban development corporation will operate on the basis of partnership with the community and the key players. Partnership and a commitment to effective community engagement represent a fundamental change from what has happened with urban development corporations in the past. I do not want to be critical of the past, but this is not London Docklands or Milton Keynes mark No. 1. I pay tribute to the previous government; both governments have used urban development corporations in a wholly different way. I know that from what happened in Birmingham Heartlands, the Black Country with the development corporation, and, I believe, in Manchester. Different and more benign kinds of urban development corporations worked on a partnership and consultative basis there, rather than putting a wall up and doing everything themselves. They have also been much more effective in taking the population along with them.
	The corporation represents a new era of co-operation to drive forward an urban renaissance for the benefit of all the people of west Northamptonshire. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order, which is also going through the other place. A few questions arise from it. In principle, everyone is obviously in favour of it, but it should not go through with a completely quiet life; the Minister would not expect me to allow that.
	I note with relief that the number of local authority members has increased substantially from the initial proposals. Will the Minister confirm that the number of members of the urban development corporation is to remain at 13—11 plus the chairman and vice-chairman—so six of those members will be from local authorities? He nodded and said yes. Can we have it in Hansard that he said yes to both points?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am more than happy about that. I sought not to over-speed the process, but we have changed from four members to six for local authorities. The number remains at 13. It was always the case that no section should have a dominant role; that fits with six out of 13. It means that adjustments will be made to the other representatives, particularly those of some of the government agencies, as we will still go through the normal process of appointments.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to pick a little more at the planning role of the development corporation. The Minister said that normal planning control would be left with the local authorities—I imagine that that is the sort of fairly routine planning that deals with house extensions and things that are already there—but that the strategic planning would be carried out by the development corporation. That planning will include the number and type of houses, and whether they are terraced or tower blocks. How much responsibility will the local authority have for input into that strategic planning? I am pretty certain that all that will rest with the development corporation, but it will need to make sure that it has the local planning authority on board. The question is really whether there will ultimately be a local authority planning role in relation to the matter.
	We probably discussed it with the Thurrock corporation, but we are back again to the problem with the infrastructure that, where we extend by the relevant amount in such parts of the world, there will presumably also be a need for adequate schools, hospitals, transport, water and amenity provisions. Will those be the responsibility of the development corporation, or will they be left with the local authority?
	The Minister indicated that the development would be based largely on brownfield sites. How much will be on greenfield land, in light of the Kate Barker recommendations that it should be used more than it is?
	The Minister also drew attention to the main urban centres of Northampton, Daventry and Towcester. I am tempted to ask whether the A5 will skirt round the whole development, or whether it will stay as a severance. The Minister might like to comment on that. Are there any plans on how each area will be extended and by how much? We are looking at a probably very substantial increase in population. If Daventry and Towcester are to be protected more or less as market towns, it would be interesting to know how much extra population is expected.
	We go back to the sustainable communities policy, over which we have had much discussion and about which there remains certain concern. The population is attracted to the south and south-east by the provision of the excessive amount of housing, rather than being held, kept or encouraged to stay in more northern regions. There are vehicles to deal with that, but does the Minister think that the corporation will be an added incentive for people to move in search of housing and work?
	Other than those short questions, we are happy to see the order go through.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I join the previous speaker in acceptance and approval of the report and order presented by the Minister today. This was the first occasion that I had an opportunity to be on this special Select Committee for the purpose of examining the order, and I pay tribute to the process, which I considered to be thorough and meticulous. I also thank the officials, the staff, the Doorkeepers and everyone who exercised maximum patience and ensured that the members of the committee were able to conduct a proper examination of the issues.
	We on this side of the House are grateful that the Minister accepted the suggestions made in the Select Committee report. There had clearly been overwhelming evidence of inadequate consultation because of the inherent speed with which the process was originally launched and then developed. I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to redress that problem. I am also grateful that the composition of the UDC will be altered significantly to take care of the additional necessities of the local authorities involved in the area, including the two major Northampton councils. From now on, through that additional membership and the other related consultation processes, it will be possible to ensure that the public have the opportunity and the right to give their views as the process unfolds. Therefore, it gives me pleasure to support the order and for it to be approved today in the House.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I was pleased to be appointed to serve on the Select Committee to consider the order. At one stage, I said to a witness whom one of the petitioners had called that I had cut my political teeth on trying to chase the unelected, wholly appointed Commission for the New Towns out of the town of Hemel Hempstead, where, in my view, it had outstayed its welcome. Therefore, the changes which the Government have made in this case, and others, to the composition of the urban development corporation are extremely welcome.
	I join the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, in thanking all those who helped the committee to do its job. I include the witnesses on both sides of the argument and everyone else. I do not wish to embarrass my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, but I pay tribute to his sensitive and sensible chairmanship. He did a marvellous job in keeping most of us in order most of the time.
	I want to pick up the point about sustainability and about what the committee made of the way in which the four local authorities which had requested the establishment of a UDC had gone about writing to the Minister and asking for that to happen. There is no question that they did it; it was the manner in which they did it. It was done mainly by the leader of the four councils concerned and the chief executive—that was all. No one else on the council was told that it was going to happen. Apparently, it did not cross anyone's mind that the leaders of the other groups on the council should be told that it was happening, let alone that they should be consulted about whether or not it was a good idea, and clearly that got up the nose of all the petitioners.
	That matters, and it is not simply a case of amour propre. From my experience of the housing action trusts in my former constituency in Castle Vale—arguably one of the most successful of about eight or nine just coming to the end of their life in the country—sustainability is not something that one sprinkles on like salt over a bag of chips; sustainability is built into the process right from the start. The residents of an area feel that they have some ownership of the process and, on a continuing basis, some input into the decisions taken on their behalf about the shape of the homes and so on. That is the one great lesson to be learnt from Castle Vale on the edge of north-east Birmingham and elsewhere.
	I am grateful for what my noble friend said about the Government taking on board the point about continuing consultation—not just playing with it but going out of their way actively to involve residents of the area—both within the walls of the boundaries of the UDC and also beyond those walls because what happens within those walls will affect people beyond them. In my view and on the back of my experience, that is the way to reawaken and reinvigorate the communities in areas with enormous potential. There is scope to manage the expansion, which will happen in any event, in a holistic way. It is not simply a question of extra houses; it is the schools, the roads, the water and the entire infrastructure. But, above all, it is about encouraging and enabling the communities within those areas of the UDC to get their hands around this matter and to feel that they are going to help to make it happen.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate but I want to endorse what was said by my two fellow members of the committee. I thank the Doorkeepers and I thank those on the local authorities who looked after us and gave us a good lunch. I also thank my noble friend Lord Boston for chairing the committee so well. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for agreeing to our recommendations. We felt very strongly about them and I am glad that he has done so.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am truly grateful to noble Lords. I think that only the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is missing from our deliberations, although the noble Lord, Lord Boston, has remained in watchful silence. As a Minister, I also pay tribute to the way in which the committee was handled. I turned up to it every day except when I was out on a visit all day and could not get back in time. Sometimes I dipped in just for half an hour in order to listen to the evidence on both sides and to the questioning by counsel and Members.
	Of the four statutory bodies established, this was the only one which had been petitioned against and therefore a Select Committee inquiry was set up. It was useful for the Government and for the department's officials to be exposed. They enjoyed it in the sense that it helps to tighten up the processes in the department. Therefore, from that point of view, the parliamentary scrutiny of the order, led by this House, has been extremely valuable. The lessons will be learnt and taken on board, both in relation to this UDC and, if there are any, other statutory bodies.
	I turn briefly to some of the specific questions asked by the noble Baroness. She asked me about the A5. The boundaries of this urban development corporation are specific to Northampton, Daventry and Towcester. As one is reported outside and this is an important matter, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the town of Brackley is not forgotten. For reasons which are understood by those involved, it is not part of the UDC because a legal regeneration case could be not made. But it is not possible to carry out the regeneration of Towcester, Daventry and Northampton without taking account of Brackley and without taking account of some of the possible benefits to that town. It is important that regeneration is not damaging to other nearby areas but is a wholly positive arrangement.
	The proposed A5 bypass at Towcester will be an early priority for the urban development corporation. It will be better placed to bring the players to the table, including the Highways Agency—it is always a pleasure to do business with that organisation—the private sector and all the bodies that will need to work together to consider this proposal. The extension of the boundary of the UDC will also bring an additional area of land into the UDC that is already flagged up for housing development. Obviously residential, employment and infrastructure development will help to rejuvenate the existing services as well as deliver employment opportunities.
	I turn to the subject of planning control. Let us be clear that once the order becomes a legal force, which I understand will occur on Monday because the Houses are not sitting tomorrow, and once the body is set up—obviously the other membership must be organised—the development control powers on the strategic sites (once Parliament has given the approval; I shall have to come back with another order) will remain and will be exclusively for the urban development corporation. It will take the planning decisions on the strategic sites. Of course, it will do it after the fullest and most detailed consultation with all those affected—not just the landowners and neighbours, but, by definition, the local authorities. As the local authorities, which in this case are cross-party—three Conservative and one Labour—willingly wanted this kind of arrangement, I believe there will be substantial consultation before the decisions are made. The actual development control, the decisions for the strategic sites, will be made by the board of the urban development corporation.
	On infrastructure, in some ways one of the advantages of the UDC is to acquire the buy-in from the increase in land values for the infrastructure. I want to put the matter into context. The urban development corporation is not setting sail on its own, devoid of any other support. This is part of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area, in which there are already other local authority-led delivery vehicles of north Northamptonshire, Aylesbury, and, of course, Milton Keynes. We are still in discussion with our partners at the southern end—the Luton and south Bedfordshire area.
	Therefore, the totality of the infrastructure process, which is sometimes road or rail links, health and education, transcends the boundaries of some of the small councils. As I have said, one example is that a study of £800,000 has been funded as part of the growth programme for the totality of the area on the health needs of the area, over a 10 to 20-year plan. So we know which district general hospitals will grow and whether a new one will be required and matched properly.
	While the urban development corporation will clearly be a lead and a help in infrastructure projects being born out of some of the increases in the land value, it is not left to do that alone—other bodies will assist. We are already experimenting in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area with new forms of alternative financing arrangements with the landowners as an experiment. At the moment, we are looking at consulting them, and that was recently approved by the sub-regional board.
	On the point made about land, our figures still apply. Our target is to have 60 per cent of all new dwellings built on brownfield sites. At the moment we are operating at about 66 to 67 per cent. By definition, one allows up to 40 per cent on greenfield sites. Not all the brownfield sites are spread evenly around the country and they are certainly not spread evenly in this growth area.
	I want to remind the noble Baroness that we have the density directive under which we can build at greater densities—at least 30 dwellings a hectare. We have done some calculations in the department. We may be able to achieve higher densities over a period of time, and concentrate on the brownfield sites. We have already said that if the whole of the growth programme succeeds, it will bring something like 1 per cent extra into the urban take of the country, increasing the figure from 10 per cent to 11 per cent. But it is possible that we can have the growth on the same land, build more dwellings on the same land, or even less land than was used in the past, simply because we have been building at too low a density. That is a very important point to take on board.
	That is part of a big process, which will be reported back to the House from time to time in relation to other debates. I hope that I have covered most, if not all, the points.
	At the moment, it is not possible to give the housing figures. A consultation process is taking place, following the study and following the examination in public over a five-week period earlier this year, for the whole of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area. The ODPM issued its amendments some weeks ago. The final decisions, announcements and publications in relation to that consultation will be made by the Secretary of State early next year. Broadly, the figures are known and are already in the public domain.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2004

Lord Rooker: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee; First Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Rooker: My Lords, as regards delivery, my English is not very good. Having used the English language while dealing with the previous order, I shall now go into local government-speak on these regulations. I warn the House that it is not a pleasant experience. I commend to the House the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) (Amendment) Regulations under Section 57 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and Section 65 of the Local Government Act 2003. They provide the mechanism to introduce the transitional arrangements for the business rates revaluation that takes effect in April 2005.
	These regulations establish whether ratepayers should have transition applied to their bills. They provide the calculations to determine the transitional bill. They deal with the various circumstances on how to calculate the bill where a property changes through a split, merger, extension, or renovation of a non-domestic property. In all cases they establish the correct transitional path. Noble Lords will recall that during the course of the Local Government Bill, we discussed at considerable length the issue of transitional arrangements. It would be quite wrong to revisit those decisions today, but the key principles are worth stating.
	The Local Government Act defines that there must be a transitional scheme. It must be paid for by other ratepayers without being a burden on the generality of taxpayers. The scheme must work through within the five-year life of the rating list. The Act also provided the power to adjust the business rate multiplier to make good the shortfall if the scheme proved not to be self-financing.
	Following a revaluation, some ratepayers face significant rises in their rates bills and others stand to benefit from significant reductions in their rates bills. We only ever hear from one of the groups—wait until we come to domestic re-rating. I should not have said that. I withdraw it.
	The purpose of the transitional scheme is to soften the impact of sudden rises in rates bills as a result of revaluation. It provides protection to those ratepayers that might, in the absence of transition arrangements, face significant rises. However, the protection needs to be funded by other ratepayers.
	That scheme will cap increases to some rates bills over a four-year period and will be funded by capping reductions in some rates bills. The caps will be structured as follows. Increases on large businesses will be capped by 12.5 per cent in 2005–06, by 17.5 per cent in 2006–07, by 20 per cent in 2007–08 and by 25 per cent in 2008–09. All ratepayers will pay their full liability in 2009–10. Small properties have a more generous arrangement as rates are often a greater proportion of the costs to small businesses. Small properties are defined as properties with a rateable value of under £15,000 outside London and under £21,500 inside London. For those properties, bills are to be capped at 5 per cent in year one and 7.5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent for subsequent years.
	The protection is paid by phasing in the decreases of those who might otherwise have seen significant reductions in their rates bills. That is done by capping their decreases. Large properties will have their reductions capped at 12.5 per cent in the first two years, 14 per cent in the third year, 2007–08, and 25 per cent in 2008–09. Small properties will have the reductions phased in at a much faster rate; namely, 30 per cent, 30 per cent, 35 per cent and 60 per cent for the four years of the scheme. The scheme will apply in England only.
	Late in 2003 we commissioned a research project to model the likely effect of revaluation prior to actual data becoming available from the valuation office and established a small stakeholder group to consider options as they emerged. It was soon apparent that any scheme that lasted one or two years would result in significant rises in rates bills when the scheme ended. In consultation with stakeholders, those were ruled out as a suitable option at an early stage, although some stakeholders favoured a short scheme or no scheme at all. Some ratepayer groups anticipated significant rises in their rates bills and, of course, pressed for a five-year scheme. However, a five-year scheme costs more than a shorter scheme.
	Moreover, in a five-year scheme, some ratepayers will not pay their true liability if they are subsequently affected by the next transition scheme. That is the point of achieving it within the five-year period. The aim of the scheme is to cushion the impact of revaluation, not to defer payment of the true liability indefinitely. A system where every ratepayer pays the true liability in the fifth year is logical and understandable.
	I am quite happy to finish there as I believe that I have summarised what is happening. If there is a great desire for me to continue, which I do not see, I shall. Therefore, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee; First Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, on that basis I am inclined not to ask too many questions and we can all quit while we are winning. Perhaps I should draw attention to the extremely short time gap between this order being laid on 2 December and it being considered today. It is so short that the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments was forced to meet so that it could give at least some views on the merits of these instruments.
	The committee drew helpful attention to the fact that not only has the order been laid with very short notice, but that the research behind it, which the Minister promised would be available before consideration of the provision, was not available when the statutory instruments merits committee met. I found it on the website only this morning and was advised by the Library of the House of Lords that it was only made available there yesterday and that the House of Commons Library is still searching.
	The research is very important. It was carried out by Foreign Economics—a company of which I have never heard, but which I am sure will rattle in our future—and was about the transparency of the various systems for phasing in these transitional arrangements and for being self-financing, which is what the Local Government Act 2003 said they must be. That is why we end up with this complicated system whereby there will be downward phasing, so that businesses that have a reduction will not receive it in the first instance but only over a spell of time, so that the money they would have got can go to support the businesses in areas which will be having an increase.
	Is the Minister aware that the provision is not universally accepted as being the ideal solution? There have been a number of comments. The Foreign Economics research attracted only 67 responses. That seems to be absolutely extraordinary. So my first question is: how many consultees were there? I am not clear whether the 30 per cent of the respondents—about 21 responses—were totally against this downward phasing and whether they would have preferred the multiplier system where a small multiplier is put on the rate in order to phase it, or no transition at all. However, I think that is a paltry response to a very serious matter which affects businesses very badly.
	There were two main methods investigated by Foreign Economics. The first was the downward phasing. Your Lordships will recall that we had a considerable discussion on downward phasing during the passage of the Local Government Bill, when both this side of the House and the Liberal Democrats were anxious about that being included. The second matter is the multiplier on the base rate. Why does the Minister think that the downward phasing is more equitable than having a multiplier on the base?
	A sine qua non with transitional arrangements is that nobody can ever understand them and that they are not at all transparent. Does the Minister think that with these transitional arrangements—albeit he only read a quarter of his speech and maybe was lost in the complexity of it all, and quite rightly did not bother us with it—there is any hope that at any time we might have a system that people might understand?

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I do not think that I can better the fairness of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the major anxieties felt on this side of the House, both by her party and the Liberal Democrat party and, I think other Members of the House. A number of representations were made from outside sources of which I think the Minister was aware, notably the very excellent work done by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors on making representations to Members of this House about some of the unfair effects of the Government's proposals.
	Therefore, I very much agree with what the noble Baroness said about the apparently very firm undertaking given by the Minister on 17 September 2003. If one reads again the record of what was said on that occasion, he seemed to be quite categorical that a substantial amount of research would be done in the appropriate amount of time and made known to this House and to all interested parties concerned, both on the accidental and sometimes half deliberate, I suppose, unfair effects of the way in which the business rate system operates since the major change that was made more than a decade ago.
	I also share the sense of surprise that despite the apparently rock-hard undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on behalf of the Government, that has not actually turned out to be so, and the research mentioned has not really given us enough time in this House and the public outside to absorb these complicated matters.
	The Minister will recall the example set out by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in its representations that when the successful amendment was proposed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to the Local Government Act 2003, the Government had the opportunity to bring in a system that would have had a fairer effect on upward phasing and would have dealt with the enormously onerous problems of downwards phasing as well, perhaps at a later stage.
	I do not feel—and I agree again with the noble Baroness—that there has been sufficient time because of the very short period. The regulations were laid on 2 December, as the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments' report says, and now we are debating it only a few days later on 9 December. If the Government and the Minister can therefore give more assurances on these matters, apart from what he said at the beginning—which was really a very complicated explanation of a very complicated subject, which he did with great aplomb and I share the sense of gratitude that he left out the second half because it was getting more and more complicated—I think that perhaps the House might be reassured, but we do need that further elucidation before we can proceed to the approval of this order.

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I ask him one question. The previous Motion, which he moved successfully, was laid approximately six months ago. This Motion was laid only seven days ago. Could he give us an explanation for the difference between those two?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a good reason. The Motion laid six months ago was then petitioned against. Your Lordships Hybrid Instruments Committee accepted that the petitioners had a case to make. Therefore, the Summer Recess intervened. The original plan was to have the urban development corporation order approved by both Houses before the Summer Recess, but of course it did not occur that way. Once the committee had rightly said that the petitioners had a case to be heard, procedures had to be followed. That is the reason for the quite extensive change. The reason for the shortness of time as regards this Motion I shall come to in a moment because it is buried in one of these paragraphs here.
	There were 63 responses to the consultation paper. It was sent out to all local authorities and some 300 organisations. So the idea of it being transparent and understandable is clearly not the case because a lot of them either thought, "This is really great; we don't need to say anything about this", or, "This is terrible; we don't understand a word. We'd better not say anything in case we get ourselves in trouble".
	I want to make plain that the matter is complicated. There are people for whom local government finance brings a glaze to the eyes and whose reason for living is to get to the minutiae. That is fine. But for the vast majority of us, it is not like that; we just end up paying the bills. The call is always to make it simple. I can recall a government deciding that the system was so complicated and that we should have a simple system. What did we get? The poll tax. Nobody can argue that the poll tax was not simple, but I warn the House that simple things are usually very unfair. That is why you have to build in what looks like extra complexities. I regret that like everybody else. Therefore, perhaps I could just deal with the note that I did not have, which deals with the Merits Committee report, which covers some of those issues. I hope that if I put that on the record, it will satisfy noble Lords.
	The Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments has drawn the regulations to the especial attention of the House. The committee expressed concern that the fixing of the debate so soon after laying the regulations and the failure to make the relevant research available earlier means that the debate may not be as fully informed as was expected at the time of the Lords' consideration of Commons amendments to the Local Government Bill in 2003. My own words have rightly been cited back at me.
	As I said, we have consulted widely with stakeholders throughout the process. All the options have been considered and evaluated and we are as confident as we can be that the relevant information has been made available and that interested people have had sufficient information to form a considered judgment. I shall say a few things about the process.
	The research project went ahead as planned. Key stakeholders were involved in the process and the final decisions were based on the outcome of the research. The research considered various models, with permutations within each model. Those were narrowed down in consultation with the stakeholder group and the preferred models were worked up in greater detail. The regulatory impact assessment reported the relevant data from the preferred models. The consultation document and the regulatory impact assessment contained all the key information from the research project.
	The research reports contained sensitive information about the impact of revaluation and the likely rateable value of specific hereditaments. It was of course not appropriate to make that information available. The Valuation Office Agency published the draft rating list on 1 October 2004. All ratepayers could find out their new rateable values and the information on rateable values in the report was made public. The consultation process was already well under way and ratepayers could work out the impact of the scheme on their rates bill.
	On the basis of the consultation and the more up-to-date data from the Valuation Office Agency, the final models were developed. The regulatory impact assessment was updated to reflect that and, in that sense, the regulatory impact assessment has now overtaken the research report. It contains the relevant information and the most up-to-date information. The research report was a technical document and I will be happy to consider making the whole technical report available, although it was not originally designed as a public document. That is why we produced the summary of the research findings.
	I have already mentioned that many options were considered. Supplement-based schemes were considered, but we did not feel inclined towards a supplement-based scheme. That position was supported by the research project and by the consultation with the stakeholders.
	With respect to timing, the data on all valuations were available from the Valuation Office Agency in June 2004. We were only then able to consider the impact on the private schemes, and announced the proposed scheme in July. The consultation closed at the end of October. The response has had to be considered, final schemes modelled and the regulations laid before the House. Under Section 65(9) of the Local Government Act 2003, the regulations must come into force before 1 January 2005 if there is to be any transitional scheme for 2005–10. We cannot see how the process can be managed under any other time-scale, given those dates. I am not responsible for business management, but I suppose but we could have done this next week, although I suspect that there are excellent reasons why we could not.
	I shall deal with one other issue dealt with by the memorandum from the Select Committee. It refers to the fact that the consultation identified a number of respondents who disagreed with the proposal. Some of those respondents argued against the principle of transitional arrangements and revenue neutrality. However, that issue was fully debated and decided in the Local Government Act and this is not really the moment to reopen it. We had a big debate about whether it should be revenue-neutral or whether the general taxpayer should fund some of it.
	So we have considered the options, including supplement-based approaches, both revenue-neutral in each year and over the life of the list. We also considered a two-year and five-year period, but five years was always difficult and has been ruled out. The researchers considered the options; stakeholders expressed their views; and officials and Ministers weighed them up and then conducted a three-month consultation on the preferred option, fully explaining the other options and the reasons for the final position. On balance, the feedback favoured downward phasing as the method of funding the relief.
	Obviously, I treat the Merits Committee seriously, because it makes fair points about the timing and research but, given what I have said, I hope that the House will accept that we have operated in good faith throughout, trying to have the maximum contact possible with those outside who will actually pay the rates, which is essentially the business community. It is important that we carry them along with us.
	I am not saying that their views are unanimous; that would be ridiculous; of course there are bound to be people out there who would prefer to pay less and those who will gain would like the gain quicker. I understand that, but Parliament decided that the measure would be revenue-neutral and we must therefore have a system that is fair to those who gain and to those who will pay a bit more. After all, they are only paying a bit more because the value of their property has risen a bit higher than the average. I suspect that, in due course, I will be introducing an order to the House for domestic rating and we will have an even higher attendance than we have today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004

Baroness Crawley: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004 be approved. It was laid before the House on 16 September, together with an Explanatory Memorandum, now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. In moving the order, for the convenience of the House, I should also like to speak the draft International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004. It was laid before the House on 24 November, again with an Explanatory Memorandum, now required for all affirmative statutory instruments.
	The first draft order will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement establishing the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation as an Intergovernmental Organisation, which was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom in 2002.
	The Geneva-based Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation, known as AITIC, was originally established in 1998 as a Swiss non-governmental organisation. It became an intergovernmental organisation in 2002 and provides valuable support to those World Trade Organisation members with little or no representation in Geneva. Its aim is to assist the least developed, low and middle-income counties and economies in transition to benefit from the multilateral trading system and to participate more actively in the work of the WTO and other trade-related organisations.
	The agreement establishing the AITIC includes provision, in Article 13, requiring members to give AITIC legal capacity: in particular the capacity to contract; to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property; and to institute legal proceedings. The draft order will enable the UK to give effect to that provision. The draft order will confer only legal capacity on AITIC and will not result in any privileges and immunities in the United Kingdom for AITIC or its staff.
	UK ratification of the agreement will allow the Department for International Development to release the funds it has allocated to support AITIC: £1 million over three years. It will also allow the UK to become a full member of the AITIC council of representatives and play an active role in that worthwhile organisation.
	The second order, the International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004, as noble Lords will note, revokes an earlier order of 2002: SI 2002/793. The present order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court, which was signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 10 September 2002, immediately following its adoption by the first Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute.
	One of our obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is to ensure that staff of the International Criminal Court and those involved in proceedings before the court can enjoy the necessary levels of privileges and immunities in order to allow the court to operate effectively. That is the purpose of this order.
	The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent court, situated in The Hague. The purpose of the ICC is to try individuals for some of the most serious crimes known to mankind; namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, perhaps in the future, the crime of aggression. There have been aspirations for the creation of such a court for the past 50 years, since the United Nations was founded in 1945 and after the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals.
	The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals not states. The court is able to prosecute not only those who carry out crimes, but also those in authority who order crimes to be committed, including heads of state and government officials. The ICC works as a court that is "complementary" to national courts. National courts retain primary jurisdiction. The ICC will take over investigating and prosecuting a crime only when the states with jurisdiction are unable or unwilling genuinely to do so.
	The ICC consists of a chamber of 18 judges divided into pre-trial, trial and appeals division, an independent prosecutor and a registry. The ICC statute contains detailed provisions safeguarding due process and fair trial in accordance with the highest international standards. The ICC may sentence individuals to terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or, where justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, life imprisonment. Fines and forfeiture of proceeds from the crimes in question may also be ordered.
	Funding is through contributions from states parties to the court and it also receives some funding from the United Nations, in particular where the UN Security Council has referred a situation. I am satisfied that both orders are compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16 September be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2003–04].—(Baroness Crawley.)

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments in moving these two orders, on which I have a number of points to make. The Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation is a body which, as the order says, asserts that there is no public or media interest—or at least in this order. I suppose that that is right, although one of the many useful roles of this Chamber is that we can drum up a little public interest or focus a beady eye on organisations that others may think are too small to merit concern or appear on the radar screen of normal accountability.
	Nevertheless, they draw taxpayers' and public money. As the noble Baroness has explained, there are moneys to be released by the department for their use, which I think is £1 million of taxpayers' money. So it is right that we should keep an eye on these issues and even if there is no vast media interest, there is a process of accountability that must be performed.
	The AITIC is a very small organisation and without a doubt its mission is valuable. Its aim is to place developing countries on more equal terms in the whole process of trade and commercial negotiation round the globe, on which it depends for getting a decent voice and a decent outcome for its development.
	There is a puzzle to which I shall probably turn in regard to the later orders. I wonder why we are dealing now with all of these immunities, yet there is a significant Bill coming up only a week away from today, which is another version of an international organisations Bill. I say "another version" because we had one in 1968 and another in 1981. That will deal extensively with immunities of a whole range of organisations.
	I wonder why it is that we are dealing with orders this week which, presumably, flow from the mother Bills of the past and the International Organisations Act 1968 and others, when another Act, which will no doubt give birth to another great flood of instruments and orders, is about to come up. That is puzzling, but I shall go into that in more detail in a moment.
	More generally, these immunities, which we are ready to grant in accordance with our international undertakings and the undertakings of many other countries, are considerable. When we turn to the next order, I shall read out the enormous list of immunities that we are about to grant, which go a very long way.
	Of course, immunities carry responsibilities. Those who are accorded the privileges and immunities under these orders in international organisations must never forget that their immunity should go hand-in-hand with proper respect for local laws and customs and that they are not just a ticket to freedom from the normal constraints of law and respect in the communities in which they happen to live and mostly work. In the case of the AITIC, we are referring to Geneva, but in other cases it is obviously the UK. They should not just be accorded a freedom to do as they wish.
	That is all that I wish to say on the AITIC order. We play—I repeat—an important part in ensuring that these small organisations are watched and their activities, while supported, are nevertheless required to be in accordance with proper standards of international behaviour and procedures.
	I now turn to the second order which concerns the International Criminal Court. Of course, this is a subject that we debated at enormous length in this Chamber two or three years ago. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the decision sets up the first permanent international court in history above national control. Therefore, all the more should we be very concerned with ensuring that there is proper accountability and procedures in such bodies as this. Otherwise, they are always in danger of becoming too remote from the sources of their funds and their original legitimacy, which are the nation states of the earth.
	However, that does not include all the nation states of the earth. We know that America has not signed on because it feels that its national procedures for dealing with international criminal behaviour, atrocities and war crimes are adequate and is concerned about handing power to higher courts. But that is their opinion. It is not our opinion: this nation has signed up. Having signed up, we now propose to give very big immunities.
	Puzzle number one from this side of the House is why, again, are we doing this this week when next week we have a Bill coming forward which, in its Explanatory Notes, states:
	"Under existing legislation the UK is unable to confer privileges and immunities on these organisations",
	which includes the International Criminal Court? That is nonsense. That is the explanation of next week's Bill, but here we are a week before the Bill has even had its Second Reading in this House granting those immunities and privileges to one of those organisations. We need an explanation of why that nonsensical statement is to appear. If it cannot be given today, I have to say that my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who is to deal with the Second Reading of the proposed Bill next week, will wish to pursue it. There seems to be a mismatch, dysfunction or non-connection here which needs to be clarified.
	Turning to the immunities, this is a very long list. I do not want to take the time of noble Lords by going through it in detail, but it includes immunities not only from personal arrest and legal process of every kind, but also exemption from taxation on salaries, emoluments and allowances; exemption from national service—this to include the families of members of the ICC and staff forming part of their households—exemption from immigration restrictions and alien registration; exemption from inspection of personal baggage; the same privileges in respect of currency and exchange facilities as those afforded to officials of comparable rank in diplomatic missions; and the right to import free of duties and taxes, except for payments of services, their furniture and effects at the time of first taking up their posts, which is fair enough.
	These are generous immunities and again, they must go hand in hand with responsibilities. We need to mark that very carefully indeed. I understand that next week's Bill will extend these immunities and privileges to even more groups. We do not have the power now to extend these provisions to certain groups, so we need a new Bill to do so. There is more to come. We would like to know what that "more" is and my noble friend Lady Rawlings will certainly pursue it. However, one is left with the slightly uneasy feeling that this is a machine handing out very substantial immunities in a rather puzzling sequence, about which we would like to know more.
	This is not the time to debate the nature of the International Criminal Court, which is only just getting under way. We hope that it achieves its mission, and does so in a way that commands the confidence of the world and does not generate in any way politically motivated intrusions into the affairs of nation states in the manner in which many expressed their fears at the time. We hope it can avoid that and do good in the spirit in which it was set up.
	That is all I have to say on the matter and on the two orders. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out their purpose.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has asked some interesting and pertinent questions and I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, she will take the opportunity to reply to those points. The Minister was kind enough to suggest taking the two draft orders together, although the subjects are totally different except for the shared concept of the application of immunities and privileges. I shall deal with them in the order in which they are set out on the Order Paper.
	Turning to the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation, Members on these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Party welcome the approval of this draft order as the necessary instrumentation for taking forward the underlying legislation for the creation of this agency. Without straying too far from the order before us, I want briefly to speak more generally. This will be of great interest to the public at large when they begin to focus on the subject. Indeed, that will be a growing phenomenon in the future. Through this agency, third world countries, those with fewer resources and smaller populations, and those which are not as wealthy as the advanced western world and advanced countries in other parts of the world, will have the opportunity to access information on trade and co-operation of all kinds.
	It is my view and, I suspect, that of most Members of this House that world trade itself certainly does need "universalisation", given the deleterious effects on the third world of many of the advanced world's international and intra-national trade arrangements—not least the effects of some of the developments within the WTO itself and the changes that will need to be made during the various rounds that are taking place on a constant basis. However, perhaps that is straying too far from the specifics of this document.
	I believe that the immunities and privileges suggested for AITIC in the draft order are rational and sensible. They have a conventional look about them—if that is not too rash a thing to say. Therefore I, too, support the order.
	Moving on to the draft order in respect of the International Criminal Court, we turn now to a much bigger subject—although I suppose that nothing could be as important as world trade. The International Criminal Court is brand new and its creation has seemingly been warmly welcomed in various parts of the world; this is obviously a very early stage for the body. It is getting under way right now and will take some time to develop. No doubt a lot of experiential evidence will be gathered in the future, which will enable the court to improve its procedures, customs and behaviour and, indeed, its juridical work. That is its main purpose in a world which is increasingly indivisible. We are one planet and there is now strong pressure for international justice in respect of those individuals—the court is reserved for individuals and not for individual countries—who commit war crimes. It is still very early days for this whole panoply of international legislation and time will be needed for it to develop.
	In the mean time, in order to arm the International Criminal Court with the appropriate procedural, practical and administrative immunities that are, as we know, the convention under such international arrangements and treaties, it is important that the corpus of immunities set out in this legislation should be quite considerable. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, implied, that is not to say that one should not be concerned to ensure that these immunities and privileges apply specifically to the people directly involved in the processes, behaviour and procedures of the court and do not stray beyond that immediate remit. Presumably that would include the definition of "household", which has already been referred to in the debate. It must be the immediate, practical and functioning household rather than any wider definition.
	Speaking personally, and not being a legal expert, on balance the text looks perfectly satisfactory. However, I would also welcome the Minister's reassurance on that point.
	With those words, Members on these Benches support both of the orders. They address totally different subjects but deal with necessary privileges and the corpus of immunities.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Dykes, for their positive response to these important orders. I have taken note of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need to look seriously at such provisions. They may not attract much attention in the media, but these matters involve public money and therefore we have to be sensible about the whole issue of accountability and effectiveness.
	I shall start by addressing the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on AITIC and the forthcoming International Organisations Bill, which will receive its Second Reading next week. I understand that the reason for bringing forward this order on AITIC is because it does not deal with privileges and immunities. Those will be addressed in the Bill, while this order deals only with legal capacity. The AITIC order gives legal capacity only to the list of issues I referred to at the opening of our debate: the acquisition and disposal of immovable and movable property and so forth. It does not confer immunities and privileges. That is why it is not in conflict with the Bill to be brought forward next week.
	Does the noble Lord wish to speak? I am sure that he will read my remarks in Hansard, and that if she feels it necessary to do so, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, will bring this matter up again in our debate on Second Reading next week.
	The noble Lord also asked why we are conferring privileges and immunities by means of the ICC order when a Bill is to come before the House next week. I am advised that the Bill will give the UK the power to confer privileges and immunities on categories of persons connected with the ICC, but not covered by this order. Those persons are family members of judges, prosecutors, deputy prosecutors, registrars and representatives of states participating in the assembly. I am sure the noble Lord will wish to return to this issue on Second Reading.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, why on earth are these new categories not included in the orders with which we are dealing today. I do not wish to pre-empt next week's debate, but it seems bizarre that we are dishing out these extensive immunities to a court that was set up a couple of years ago, and now someone has thought up a whole new category of people with which we are going to deal next week. Would it not have been more reasonable in terms of public accountability and procedures to have put all these matters together?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I may read the long version. The noble Lord may get some solace from it.
	The legal basis of the ICC order is the International Criminal Court Act 2001. It was, however, not possible to use the provisions of that Act to confer privileges and immunities on family members of the judges of the court and on representatives of states participating in the assembly and its subsidiary organs and representatives of international organisations as required by the ICC privileges and immunities agreement.
	The International Organisations Bill, which was laid before the House on 24 November, will amend the 2001 Act to enable us to confer privileges and immunities on these persons by an Order in Council which will be made once the Bill enters into force. So there we have it. I am sure that it will all be as clear as daylight on Second Reading next week.
	The noble Lord asked how we will ensure that AITIC is effective. Both noble Lords referred to the fact that there is a great responsibility involved in both organisations. We will participate actively in the council of representatives, as we have done in the preparatory committee. Our aim is to ensure that AITIC follows best management practice in its operations and meets the needs of its clients effectively.
	In relation to the ICC, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked why we are covering the extent of immunities and privileges that we are. The UK is under an international obligation to confer all privileges and immunities contained in the ICC agreement on privileges and immunities. The order does no more than that. The UK is not conferring any privileges or immunities that are not required by the agreement.
	With those explanations, I hope that both orders will be accepted.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Criminal Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 November be approved. [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Crawley.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Police College (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2004

Lord Triesman: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Triesman: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall speak also to the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Police Office) Order and the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) (Amendment) Order 2004. All three orders were laid before the House on 24 November, together with the Explanatory Memoranda now required for all affirmative statutory instruments.
	The first order will enable the Government to give effect to the headquarters agreement recently negotiated with the European Police College. The privileges and immunities agreed in the headquarters agreement are similar to those conferred on other organisations and headquarters based in the United Kingdom. The European Police College is now known as "CEPOL" from the original French acronym for the organisation—College Europeen de Police.
	CEPOL is a network of senior police training colleges, which are located in all EU member states. The network is supported by a central secretariat, which is now permanently located in the United Kingdom at the headquarters of the Central Police Training and Development Authority at Bramshill. The secretariat provides administrative, financial and technical support to the CEPOL network.
	CEPOL was established by Council Decision 2000/820/JHA in December 2000 to improve police co-operation, to identify and disseminate good practice, and to develop and deliver training to senior police officers involved in the fight against international and cross-border crime. We are very fortunate in having the secretariat established in the United Kingdom. We won the right to do so against strong competition from seven other EU member states.
	The second and third orders are required to amend the European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) Order 1997 by providing that Europol officials participating in joint investigation teams shall not enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in relation to their official acts regarding their participation in such schemes.
	I emphasise this point because these orders are unusual. They do not confer privileges and immunities but, rather, they take them away. Europol staff members have privileges and immunities from prosecution in relation to their official duties. These are in line with members of other international organisations. Retaining these privileges and immunities would not be appropriate for Europol staff when they are working alongside law enforcement officers on international joint investigation teams. It would give Europol staff protection from criminal and civil liability, whereas other members of those teams would enjoy no such protection. Therefore, in this context, the privileges and immunities are removed.
	I am satisfied that all three orders are compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and I trust that all three will meet with your Lordships' approval.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and I think—although I may have followed these things inadequately—that he has now assumed some responsibilities in foreign affairs. Is that correct? In which case, I take this opportunity to welcome him very warmly to foreign affairs, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others participate all the time. When the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, joined your Lordships' House, a year or two ago, he parachuted in with amazing ease and, from day one, appeared to be totally at home with your Lordships' quirks and moods. I congratulate him on that and am very glad that he is now involved in our discussions of foreign affairs, which are on-going.
	These three orders deal, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said, with the network of European police colleges, CEPOL, the secretariat of which is to be set up at Bramshill in Surrey. I have visited there and it is a very fine Elizabethan building with extensions. It will, no doubt, be a good home for this body. We welcome the secretariat being set up in the United Kingdom.
	We favour intimate collaboration and co-operation between police forces, intelligence services and all categories of policing throughout the European region, contrary to some assertions that are aimed at these Benches from time to time. We very much support real and effective European co-operation and collaboration and, indeed, the building of unity in detail. It is just that the kind that we like is different from the ersatz kind of imposed collaboration and co-operation that seems to be offered by the European constitution document and peddled by people such as the Minister, Mr MacShane, and others. I realise that that is another debate and I do not want to open it up now. We will be having plenty of it at a later time.
	This is a positive move, a positive organisation and a positive arrangement. It is right that we should deal with the question of immunities and privileges for those working in it in a positive way. As the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said, the second two orders are unusual in that they reduce some of the immunities and privileges that would otherwise accrue to those working in the Europol network. That is unusual, but it is entirely proper and right for the reasons that he has explained.
	I am not 100 per cent clear about the legal basis of the whole CEPOL arrangement. We welcome it as it is an interesting and important development, but is it a "body" of the European Union or an "institution" of the European Union or has it nothing to do with the European Union or its treaties at all? A word of illumination on that would help us.
	I notice that in another place the European Scrutiny Committee had a number of questions on this order about why and how immunities and privileges procedures were being applied. It asked why, if this body was getting this treatment—both the immunities and privileges that the order gives and some which it adjusts and takes away—that was not also being applied to other bodies such as Eurojust. It would be useful to have a comment on that as well because colleagues in the other place went into it in considerable detail and we are concerned by aspects of it. Having said that, we welcome these three orders and are glad to see these matters being clarified.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these three orders. We on these Benches welcome the orders dealing with Europol. As a plug, I refer your Lordships to the report of Sub-Committee F of 23 January 2003, Europol's Role in Fighting Crime, in which noble Lords will find every answer they might want about Europol. In our report, we said that Europol had a crucial role to perform in supporting the member states in combating serious organised crime in the EU, which is even more important now, post-Madrid, in relation to terrorism.
	Europol is an intergovernmental institution and national parliaments need to be involved as well. We are very happy to support these two orders and we note that the Joint Committee has not seen fit to draw them to the attention of the House.
	On the CEPOL order, which sets up the European police college, it is very welcome that its headquarters are at Bramshill, a place I know well. It is a centre of policing excellence. It is very appropriate that the CEPOL headquarters are situated there.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I was interested in the relationship between the proposal for a Council decision to establish CEPOL as a body of the European Union with legal responsibility, and so on, and the immunities and privileges order. Why are the Government bringing forward this order when the matter is covered in the draft decision? Is there not a subsidiarity issue regarding the implementation of training? I should be very grateful to learn of the Government's response to that as Sub-Committee F heard that the Minister expressed interest in the provision on national units, under Article 12.
	We on these Benches support the three orders.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for their comments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his welcome. It was particularly kind of him to say that I had got used to the quirks of the House, but they are very enjoyable things to get used to. I thank him very much.
	I hope that I can address the specific questions that have been asked. CEPOL is a body of the European Union; it was established by Council decision 2000/820 made under the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty of the European Union. It was unquestionably well within the remit of that part of the European Union's treaty.
	The Government believe that the European Police College, making, as it will do, a valuable contribution to the prevention and detection of crime, will be properly affected by a decision under Article 31(c) of the EU treaty. In our view, where the creation of a body is required to facilitate the attainment of objectives that are set out in Article 29 of the treaty, then such a body can be established under the terms of the treaty.
	Let me give a little of the legal background. The European Police College, established by that Council decision, means that the protocol does not apply to CEPOL. That is why the International Organisations Act 1968 has been used to make this order. I have no doubt that we will be returning to the question in due course, when the new legislation is before the House.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked several questions. She asked first about the relationship between the proposal for the Council decision to establish it and the legal personality issue in relation to the immunities and privileges order. I think that I have probably set out the legal basis, and I hope that that answer is satisfactory. If the noble Baroness would like any further detail, I would of course be very happy to write to her.
	The Government are bringing forward an order when the matters are covered in the draft decision because the purpose of the order is to implement the headquarters agreement between the UK and CEPOL under which the UK is obliged to confer legal capacity, privileges and immunities on CEPOL. The UK is under an obligation in that context to give effect to this agreement, regardless of the draft decision. The decision is a draft, and there is no guarantee that it will be adopted. Therefore, steps have to be taken under the present rubric to make sure that we are properly aligned with our obligations.
	The final question is the intriguing one of subsidiarity, particularly on the implementation of training. That is an important question. The CEPOL secretariat will support the national training institutions and the co-ordination of training in each member state. I emphasise that each member state will continue to deliver its national training at its national training institutions. So there will certainly be a level of co-ordination—a spread of best practice. I hope that it will develop methods to enable the pursuit of cross-border criminals to be carried out under the most effective routines that can be established among member states. But it does not remove from any member state its subsidiary responsibility for its own national training institutions. Therefore, there will be no subsidiarity issue as training will continue to be provided in those national centres.
	I hope that I have addressed the key points. I look forward to the debate on the new legislation. These statutory instruments are required because our obligation is to do things properly in terms of the current legislation, and we will improve it when and if the new legislation is passed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Police Office) Order 2004

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) (Amendment) Order 2004

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Critical National Infrastructure

Lord Harris of Haringey: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the ability of the critical national infrastructure to withstand cyber-attack.
	My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise a matter that I believe is potentially of enormous importance to the security and well-being of this country. I should begin by declaring an interest as the Home Secretary's nominee as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority with responsibility for the Met's national and international functions including counter-terrorism. However, I should make it clear that none of what follows has been informed by or influenced by anything that I have been briefed about or learned in that capacity.
	Many of your Lordships will have suffered viruses on home computers or will have installed software to protect them from such attack. Indeed, some of you will no doubt have done both. Your Lordships will also recall that on 4 May 2000 the "Love Bug" virus caused the parliamentary network to be shut down. That virus crippled computers world-wide causing billions of pounds of damage.
	Since then, in 2003 alone, we have seen the "Slammer" worm which infected more than 300,000 servers in less than 15 minutes and clogged networks across the globe, crashing bank ATMs and delaying airline flights; the "Blaster" worm that infected more than half a million PCs, attempting to hijack them for a coordinated attack on Microsoft's security web site; the "Sobig" worm that turned tens of thousands of PCs into a network sending out spam; and the "Welchia" and "Nachi" worms that disabled many corporate networks for days on end.
	As a nation, the systems that are essential for our health and well-being rely on computer and communications networks. Whether we are talking about the energy utilities, the water and food distribution networks, transportation, the emergency services, telephones, the banking and financial systems, indeed government and public services in general, all are vulnerable to serious disruption by cyber-attack with potentially enormous consequences. Indeed, the Coastguard Service was laid low by the "Sasser" worm in May this year.
	The threat could come from teenage hackers with no more motivation than proving that it could be done; but even more seriously it could come from cyber-terrorists intent on bringing about the downfall of our society. Let us be clear, the destructive virus and worm attacks that I have mentioned were the result of individual uncoordinated efforts by a small handful of anti-social "electronic juvenile delinquents". They were not a systematic attack by an organised adversary, intentionally designed to disrupt our systems and services. An organised attack would be many, many times more dangerous.
	I am not alone in these fears. General John Gordon, the White House's homeland security adviser, has said that he believes that Osama bin Laden plans to use the Internet to cause serious damage to the economies of the West; and it is well known that computers seized from those allegedly engaged in Al'Qaeda activities have demonstrated that those using them have a high level of IT skill and literacy. At the same time, the South Korean defence ministry—admittedly not the most impartial observer—has said that North Korea has trained as many as 600 computer hackers, so as to be capable of launching a cyber-war.
	Well over 100 other nation states are reported to have some form of offensive information warfare programme. It is not inconceivable to assume that the knowledge and skills developed by such programmes represent a potential threat to the UK critical national infrastructure.
	Over the past few months I have sought in a series of Parliamentary Questions to establish what measures are in place to ensure that the UK's critical national infrastructure is protected against such attacks. The responses have all referred to the pivotal role of the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC), established five years ago this month. However, the same responses have made it clear that the NISCC is only an advisory body and that each element of the critical national infrastructure, whether in the public or private sector, is responsible for its own defence. The NISCC does not even know how many computer systems the UK's critical national infrastructure comprises. The advice and alerts issued by the NISCC have helped to make systems more resilient. But my core question remains: is enough being done, and is the framework of powers within which it operates sufficient for its purpose?
	I understand that, since 20 May 2002, when records were first centralised, the Ministry of Defence has reported 71 instances when malicious programs compromised the security of its system—that is to say, 71 instances when systems were not just attacked but compromised. One of those was the LovGate virus, which affected more than 4,000 MoD computers at more than 30 sites. It took over four weeks to rid MoD computers of that malicious program.
	I ask my noble friend Lord Bassam whether it is the case that no other government department even keeps statistics on the number and impact of security compromises of their computing networks. The MoD's experience demonstrates that there are a potentially significant number of incidents to record. Is it not a weakness if Her Majesty's Government do not even know the extent of the problem on their own systems? Moreover, most of the critical national infrastructure is privately operated. In those cases, it may well not be in the commercial interests of those owners and operators even to acknowledge to anyone outside their own organisations that they have had a problem. Is that weakness not compounded if the NISCC has merely an advisory function?
	Legislation and regulation extend into almost every aspect of society. Earlier today, noble Lords debated the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys Order 2004. I do not wish to suggest that it was not an important measure; yet, we regulate there but apparently ignore the need to regulate the UK's critical national infrastructure. I am not a technical expert; however, my understanding is that, where there are multiple workstations, the security of an entire system can be breached by one operator at one workstation failing to follow security procedures adequately, and that once that has happened, it would be impossible to detect whether lurking on that system was code enabling someone from outside to log on as a super-user and control the entire system.
	Have not exercises demonstrated that even those UK government systems thought to be the most secure can be accessed in this way very easily and very quickly? Will my noble friend confirm whether such exercises have taken place, and, if so, what action has taken place as a result? If no such exercises have taken place, is it not about time that they did?
	My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, in response to one of my Questions in May, said,
	"the NISCC has no regulatory authority".—[Official Report, 18/5/04; col. WA 78.]
	I understand that. It is in the interests of operators that they operate their systems securely. However, given the consequences to the UK, its economy and the well-being of its people if they fail to do so, should there not be safeguards to ensure that the necessary steps, which in some instances may exceed the operators' immediate commercial interests, are taken? I am told, for example, that certain UK financial institutions have advised their security departments to cease checking for computer system vulnerabilities because of the potential liabilities that may arise if vulnerabilities are identified but not corrected.
	In all this, I am not criticising the work of the NISCC. However, it is my contention that some regulation is necessary. As a minimum, the Government should be able to establish standards for the design and operation of the components of the critical national infrastructure, and there should be some system of certification of the arrangements that each operator has in place. Even that minimum would not be sufficient; there must be some system of validation for ensuring compliance and testing the adequacy of security.
	For those who believe that that would be an overreaction, I refer again to the way in which the Coastguard Service fell victim to the "Sasser" worm attack. I understand that Microsoft made available on 12 April a patch that would have prevented such an attack. The NISCC issued a briefing giving details the following day, at 19.15; I am not, incidentally, reassured by that timescale. That was followed by alerts and bulletins on 19, 23 and 30 April and on 1 and 3 May. That still did not prevent the Coastguard Service from failing to apply the patch and succumbing to the virus. If the Government's agencies do not comply, what reassurance can we have that those outside government will do so?
	The NISCC is an ad hoc, inter agency group. It has no statutory basis and, as such, its funding and future cannot be assured. Even now, after five years of its existence, I remain to be convinced that it possesses sufficient resources to conduct its full mission on a 24/7 basis. Computer network attacks take place and propagate widely in a matter of minutes. UK response mechanisms must be in place and ready to respond when the problem occurs. Calling a meeting of COBRA for the next day to determine what should be done is not the answer.
	Finally, may I ask what would happen were there to be a serious attack that severely damaged the critical national infrastructure? What powers are available to the Government to manage the national response and direct the restitution of systems as speedily as possible? I hope that in his reply, the Minister will acknowledge that those are serious concerns. A few weeks ago, the Sunday Times reported that MI5 was warning that Britain was,
	"four meals away from anarchy"—
	in effect, that Britain could be quickly reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting, in the event of a serious disruption of the critical national infrastructure.
	I hope that I have said enough to establish the vulnerability of the systems on which we all rely. I hope also that it is acknowledged that if the technology is well within the reach of teenage computer nerds all over the world, it is easily available to organised crime or terrorist networks. Under such circumstances, we cannot afford to be complacent—and it is complacent to rely on a system that is voluntary and powered by advice notes that can be, and indeed are, ignored. It is complacent not even to know the number of computers and communication systems that make up the critical national infrastructure, let alone to have any system of reassurance that these are adequately structured and protected. It is complacent not to have in place any recovery plan in the event of something happening that seriously damages that infrastructure. I look forward to my noble friend's reply, and I hope that I shall be reassured.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for having introduced this very topical debate today. As the noble Lord said, he has through various Written Questions raised the alarm about this potential threat and been a campaigner for greater awareness of cyber attacks. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the work of the NISCC in monitoring and dealing with cyber attacks. However, he also warned that the role of the NISCC is purely as an advisory body and each element of the critical national infrastructure is really responsible as an individual entity for its own defence. I am not surprised that the NISCC does not have accurate knowledge of how many computer systems comprise the UK's CNI.
	I should at the outset declare an interest in that for the past seven years I have been managing director of a listed web-hosting company, with data centres in the United Kingdom as well as the United States. I am now merely a consultant of the organisation. But it is noted that, almost on a daily basis, customers running online gaming companies are under continuous distributed denial of service attacks—known as DDOS attacks—from what are called "botnet armies". Organised criminal gangs are using these attacks for the purposes of theft and extortion.
	There is no doubt that the rising incidence of cyber crime and potential cyber terrorism is a matter of grave concern to the United Kingdom. While I fully support the work of NISCC, I question whether our Government are taking this increased threat both to our critical national infrastructure and to our businesses seriously enough.
	The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit has rightly warned of the threats from on-line theft and extortion but the danger is not just to business. The computer systems that support the CNI are all vulnerable to serious disruption with potentially enormous consequences for public utilities, food distribution companies and the financial services sector. As we have heard, the threat is coming not just from teenage hackers with no more motivation than proving it can be done—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used those words—but also from cyber terrorists, who are referred to by Scotland Yard as the botnet armies.
	So, to what extent is our critical national infrastructure at risk from cyber attack? Thankfully our CNI is owned and operated by almost 50 different companies with their own IT security and with little or no interconnect at an electronic level. By way of example, if a botnet army were to try to bring down our national water companies, there would need to be a cyber attack on all the different water companies' computer systems in the expectation that they all had the same weaknesses and the same lack of IT security, which is, of course, very unlikely.
	A far more realistic and grave threat to the water companies—this would be more of a physical attack—would be if deadly chemicals were deposited in one of the main reservoirs. As regards electronic crime, the largest threat to several of the utility companies would be an attack on their billing systems, which is easily achievable through a DDOS attack. Can the Minister when winding up this short debate tell us whether the Government are concerned about the potential for massive financial loss to CNI companies due to the generic threat of DDOS? Moreover, is the Minister able to tell us how many of the CNI companies are BS7799 security compliant?
	Our National Health Service is becoming increasingly reliant on information technology. I believe that the level of investment in NHS security is potentially of more concern than the threat to our water and utility companies. There is a very real threat of attack on several of our National Health Service trusts. There are moves to push BS7799 security accreditation on to health authorities. Will the Government consider setting time-scales and budgets for all our health and education authorities to adopt BS7799 and compel the use of best practice security within these critical public services?
	To my understanding, there are inadequate IT security protections for most local government IT services. I noted in the DTI's information security report of 2004 on BS7799, which it is encouraging public and private sector organisations to implement to mitigate the security threat, that there is neither overall awareness of this standard, nor for that matter have many UK businesses taken it up. I noted that most UK businesses that were canvassed in the survey thought that they would be subject to a growing threat of cyber crime.
	So there certainly needs to be far more partnership with industry stakeholders in pooling resources and knowledge to fight the potential problem. In this regard, I welcome the recent launch of the Zero Tolerance Alliance, with its commitment to reducing organised and international cyber-crime.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already mentioned, cyber-criminals are hijacking our home computers via broadband accounts and using them to launch extortion attacks, DDOS attacks, spam attacks, phishing scams and virus attacks. The list of e-crimes goes on and on.
	Just recently, I hosted a cyber-crime conference here in the House of Lords. The head of the Metropolitan Police Computer Crime Unit came to address us. The list of the various potential threats into which it is looking runs to two pages. Its remit is,
	"to prevent, disrupt and prosecute individuals or groups engaged in e-crime which affects computer users in London".
	In a supplementary question, I pointed out to the Minister that only 100 detectives in the United Kingdom are currently qualified to investigate computer crimes and that now is surely the time for the Metropolitan Police to give more resources to training those who could look into this growing threat. It is only a matter of time before these methods could be used by cyber-terrorists to launch against our key CNIs.
	It takes an average of only 15 minutes for an unprotected personal computer, attached to the Internet, to become compromised, with millions of PCs being hijacked and used against us. I was alarmed to hear at a recent e-crime seminar that up to 35 per cent of Internet credit card transactions are fraudulent and that almost 80 per cent of all Internet e-mail is spam. While anti-virus software and other tools have some benefit, they have not solved, and will not solve, the problem.
	Should we not be emulating the success of Sarbanes-Oxley in the United States and encouraging organisations to focus on Internet security control and disaster recovery? What is patently clear and very alarming is that no government organisation has operational responsibility for managing defence against cyber-attacks. As we have already heard, MI5 is right to warn of such a potential attack. What is surprising is the degree of complacency in addressing the threat. Must we wait until we are victims of such an attack before we consider cyber-terrorism to be a viable threat? I hope not.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we would all like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on raising the issue that is before us today. I should declare an interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. In preparation for this debate, I made some inquiries into this subject and was really rather surprised to find that very little is being done to cope with this threat.
	There is some activity, but it is not on the scale appropriate to the threat which either the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, indicated. They described a very serious threat. I certainly do not detect that the preparations in the police force match the threat which has been described to us.
	I might be wrong, because one is obviously talking about an area of high security and people do not talk much about it, but perhaps the Minister might be able to reassure us that the level of preparation is higher than it appears to be.
	We should not be panicked into draconian measures and should always be alert to our civil liberties, which can easily be sacrificed in a rather ill thought-out rush towards a remedy. We should safeguard the right of free speech but recognise that people are entitled to protection in their home and workplace. Their computers are entitled to some protection, as are their employees. They are obviously entitled to that protection from physical and verbal harassment as much as they are from having their computers tapped.
	I am concerned about whether the present law allows a sufficient degree of investigation and surveillance of computer systems as we imagine. It has been suggested to me by some police officers that the levels of surveillance that they are able to undertake are circumscribed by the law. I would like the Minister specifically to deal with that when he answers the debate.
	I did not hear or read the Questions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the past. However, when I have been present in the House for replies to Questions about the likes of spam, I have detected a rather laissez-faire attitude on the part of the Government. Their attitude implies, "It's a nuisance but we'll get round to it some time". In fact, it is an extremely serious and fast-growing problem, as are all other sorts of intrusion to which we are subjected such as telephone calls from people selling us things that we do not want. There appears to be very little that one can do about that. My present wife was widowed six years ago, but almost every day we still get calls for her husband. There seem to be ways into systems—I certainly do not know about them—that indicate that, if there is a firewall, it has lots of holes in it.
	I am aware that police forces around the country undertake a lot of exercises to test their readiness to deal with all sorts of attack that would have catastrophic consequences on those affected—shooting down airliners and so on. Those exercises are hugely expensive; they involve the police, the ambulance service, the fire service, the military and all sorts of other people. They can cost millions of pounds, but they are necessary to test the readiness of this country to deal with such attacks. Particularly in times of tremendous financial stringency, many police authorities take such threats seriously but are unable to undertake the exercises to prepare themselves for such eventualities. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that when he replies.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for having initiated this most timely debate, and for sharing his expertise with the House.
	There are three kinds of cyber-attack, the first of which are the so-called viruses and worms which are intended to disrupt individual personal computers. Almost 13 million United Kingdom households have access to the Internet, and it is probably fair to say that a large proportion of those have already been subjected to such an attack. They are mischievous and malicious attacks often perpetrated by vain young men simply to prove their own computer skills, to use slightly different words from those used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. They are no different from any other acts of vandalism. Sometimes these young men are situated in remote places and are very difficult to track down, especially when they are careful enough to launch their attacks via a series of different, but connected, telephone links. I believe that one such young man was found recently in a remote part of Thailand.
	Secondly, moving one step up the scale, there are the activities of criminals. We recently saw the publicity about attempts at identity theft in the form of requests for banking information, including passwords, from bogus banking websites. That is done by sending out thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of e-mails in the hope of finding a customer of the bank concerned and, in addition, one who is gullible enough to respond by providing the confidential information requested, enabling the victim's account to be looted before the fraud is discovered.
	Before I comment on this aspect further, I want to mention another form of cyber gangster—one who, for political reasons, deliberately tries to sabotage mail order companies and other concerns which are conducting legitimate business via the Internet or which are trying to provide legitimate information on their websites. This sabotage is carried out by overwhelming the website with multiple simultaneous hits until the site simply breaks down. Often such sabotage is conducted by self-appointed, answerable-to-no-one, so-called anti-globalism activists.
	The further comment that I was intending to make was as follows. There is a duty on several fronts to guard against this criminal activity and, first and foremost, it is on the users of the Internet—you and me, my Lords. We must ensure that we do not give out sensitive information over the net or even to some anonymous person who asks us to confirm our details over the telephone when we have not even initiated the call.
	Then there is a responsibility on the so-called service providers—those who run the systems on which the fraudulent websites exist. Of course, I concede that it is impossible for service providers to monitor the activities of each and every one of their customers all the time. But, as commercial concerns receiving fees from those criminals, they do have a duty to cut them off as soon as suspicious activities are detected, in the same way as they do when they discover objectionable material being disseminated by racists and other similar sources.
	Then there is the responsibility of those who run search engines. A search engine is just an index which leads the searcher to a site in which he may be interested. Those running search engines cannot possibly control the millions—I have heard it suggested that it may be hundreds of millions—of websites that can be found on their lists. But they can continue to delete fraudulent, racist and terrorist sites from their systems as soon as they are detected.
	In addition, there are the manufacturers of the computer operating systems. Obviously we must respect matters of commercial confidentiality, but there must be some degree of co-operation among the handful of giant concerns which each generate vast amounts of profit by exchanging information about potential loopholes in their systems. Also, individually, whatever the commercial pressures, they should never launch a new product on to the market, or upgrade an old one, until they have taken the additional time to see that it is not vulnerable to an attack.
	The problems that I have just mentioned are only on the periphery of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. But cyber vandalism, in the form of launching destructive viruses and worms, is just as much a crime as vandalising someone's house, and cyber crime in the form of identity theft or fraud is just as much robbery as housebreaking or mugging. Spreading racism or incitement to terrorism is no less objectionable or criminal than any piece of street-corner demagoguery—in fact, it is worse because of the worldwide audience that it can reach.
	The state has a duty to protect its citizens against all these crimes, just as it has a duty to protect them against any other crime. But, in addition to these cyber crimes against individuals, there is also a far greater potential crime: it is what may properly be described as the weapon of mass destruction of cyber space. This is not mere hyperbole. What else is a weapon that can disrupt water supplies without poisoning a single reservoir, that can disrupt communication and transport networks without bombing a single building, or that can cause chaos to social services without killing a single pensioner? It is not a weapon dependent on the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and it is not dependent on the attacker breaching the frontiers of our country or evading biometric passport controls. All that is needed is a source of electricity and a telephone line.
	The entire industrial world and, indeed, most countries are now entirely dependent on computer systems for banking, finance and other commercial interests, telecommunications, transport systems, including air traffic control, water systems, energy and emergency services. There is no doubt that a determined attack on any of those could wreak havoc, at least for a short time, and could possibly cost lives.
	I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government are doing to protect us against such a situation. I shall tell him what we on these Benches would like to see in place. First and foremost, we would like there to be a Minister for homeland security, such as now exists in the United States of America. It is no use such a responsibility simply being a part of the duties of the Home Office. The Home Secretary has more than enough to preoccupy him. We need a single Minister with the single duty of protecting us and our commercial interests from attack within our shores.
	I hesitate to reopen old battles, but I would like to remind the Minister of the efforts that I had to make in the interests of academic freedom during the passage of the Export Control Act 2002 to permit the continued exchange of information between scientists, particularly in the area of encryption of computer data, which is an essential tool in the protection of communication systems.
	In 1998, President Clinton issued a presidential directive requiring,
	"a goal of a reliable interconnected and secure information system infrastructure by the year 2003".
	The directive goes on to require policies that,
	"address the cyber and physical infrastructure of the . . . Government by requiring each department and agency to work to reduce its exposure to new threats".
	Those objectives will be achieved by setting up a national co-ordinator whose scope,
	"includes critical infrastructure, foreign terrorism, and threats of domestic mass destruction".
	The National Infrastructure Protection Center, set up by the FBI, fuses a whole alphabet soup of government agencies. The presidential directive calls for the setting up of an information sharing and analysis centre by the private sector.
	I would be the last person to advocate the setting up of any more quangos in the United Kingdom, but it is clear that national and local government have neither the time nor the expertise to handle that very critical problem on their own, to say nothing of the waste of time caused by duplicated effort and interdepartmental rivalry and secrecy.
	As long ago as February 2003 the Government announced the setting up of an organisation called the Central Sponsor for Information Assurance to,
	"bring together information technology expertise from across government and to work with the public and private sectors to ensure that risks to the national information infrastructure are appropriately managed".
	It would be most helpful if the Minister could define the word "appropriately" so that we can judge the adequacy of those plans.
	This debate gives the Minister the opportunity to tell your Lordships within, of course, the constraints of national security—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—what progress that new agency has made in meeting its objectives; what progress has been made by the European Network and Information Security Agency, set up at the same time as our own domestic agency; what degree of co-operation exists between our own agency and the European one; and what degree of co-operation exists between both of them, on the one hand, and the United States' National Infrastructure Assurance Council, on the other.
	All the activities to which I have referred are criminal. What is required is an international convention whereby the perpetrators can be tried like the pirates they are, wherever they are caught, no matter to which country their activities are directed and no matter what their motivation. Personally, I would like to see the Government undertaking to promote such an international convention, especially in our forthcoming capacity as president of the EU and of the G8 industrial giants.
	In the light of recent small-scale, random and individual computer attacks, which the Government should regard as a warning of things to come, I hope that we shall receive from the Minister, not just warm words of reassurance, but news of what Winston Churchill used to describe as "action this day".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would like to place on the record my thanks to all those who have taken part in this short but very valuable debate this afternoon about something which is obviously of central and critical importance. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris for his continued interest in this area of government activity.
	We have heard a lot this afternoon about cyber-vandalism, "botnet armies" and attacks on systems from slammer worms and so on. It begins to paint a picture of quite understandable concern about a very complex issue. Today's society is complex and inter-connected. We live in complex times and in a world where global events determine what happens across and between nations and where systems can be particularly susceptible to attack from places far away. It is right that we carefully look at and manage our response to that.
	At its heart is a technology infrastructure that supports virtually every aspect of our interdependent lives. Some parts of that infrastructure are considered to be so important that the loss of them would cause serious disruption or worse to society. We have heard some examples of that during the course of the debate. This structure, the critical national infrastructure, (CNI) is well known to all of us.
	In the United Kingdom the CNI is broken up into 10 sectors—communications, energy, finance, government and public services, water and sewerage, health, emergency services, transport, hazards and public safety, and food. Each of those touches our lives in some way, from significant through to trivial. The failure of parts of the CNI might have drastic consequences in personal, economic, commercial, law enforcement or even national security terms.
	Like every other strategic service that the nation operates, the CNI is vulnerable to attack from a list of potential aggressors. However, the nature of the CNI makes it particularly vulnerable to attack by the very components from which it is constructed; namely, computers. A range of individuals may seek to do damage. Those range, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, from the nerdy schoolboy with a computer in his bedroom able to hack into a system, through to the hostile state anxious to acquire our secrets or to damage our economy.
	More seriously, there are also terrorists who would challenge and seek to undermine democratic society using any methods within their grasp. It is not complacent to say this; but perhaps it should be made plain that at the moment they do not appear to be interested in attacking us electronically. However, as we all know, that could change at any time. So it is right that we should be in a state of ready preparedness.
	To focus and co-ordinate the Government's response to these threats, in 1999, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, the then Home Secretary set up the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC). Its remit remains unchanged: to minimise the risk of electronic attack against the critical national infrastructure.
	A number of parts of government contribute towards NISCC—defence, trade, the intelligence agencies, central policy and law enforcement. The Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Security Service, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit and CESG—a part of GCHQ—all contribute effort and expertise to that.
	However, not all of NISCC's expertise is drawn from the public sector. Most of the CNI is owned and operated, as we know, by the private sector. NISCC has developed a number of innovative ways in which to harness the very extensive expertise that exists in that sector. It seeks to combine this with public sector input to provide assurance to the Government about the resilience and robustness of the CNI to withstand electronic attack.
	NISCC conducts its work through four broad streams of activity: threat assessment, using a wide range of resources to investigate, assess and disrupt threats; through outreach work, promoting protection and assurance through outreach information sharing and varied communications; by response, by warning of new threats, advising on mitigation, managing disclosure of vulnerabilities and helping the CNI to investigate and recover from attack; and through research and development by advising the most advanced techniques and methods to support efforts across all work streams.
	The NISCC is unique in the world as it brings together open sources of information with some of the most sensitive to combine to a common purpose. It produces threat assessments, some general in nature and others tailored to a specific critical national infrastructure sector or company. It will always seek to prevent or disrupt damaging activity against the CNI.
	The NISCC issues alerts and advice, often on a 24/7 basis. In the past 12 months, it has issued 40 alerts about incidents or important issues requiring immediate action; for example, news of newly discovered viruses. It has issued 713 briefing papers and technical notes, providing background on IT security matters, and 83 protectively marked assessments and formal reports on the threat from electronic attack to various elements of the CNI. I hasten to add that those latter documents are not in the public domain for important national security reasons.
	So today's difficulty in Asia is often tomorrow's problem in Europe. NISCC staff are available throughout the day and throughout the year to help support the critical national infrastructure. Now, the NISCC is playing a leading role in identifying key vulnerabilities in systems and working with vendors to get mitigation in place.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend in mid-flow. He said that the NISCC was available throughout the day and throughout the year. Does that mean that it is not available at night?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I should have used the term 24/7 because that is exactly what it provides. In the past year it has issued 12 reports about serious vulnerabilities in protocols used across the CNI.
	A strong emphasis is placed on international co-operation. As we all appreciate, CNI issues transcend geographical borders. Problems can strike anywhere in the world and affect countries almost immediately. Many countries are seeking to set up structures to protect their critical national infrastructure. Most want to visit the United Kingdom to learn how we do it. We should be proud of our standing as a leader in this important field.
	To improve international co-operation, the NISCC publishes an international directory—the first of its kind—of those involved in similar duties across the world. That is no mean feat considering countries have very different ways of organising their CNI protection responsibilities. They often spread across a range of different departments, agencies and private bodies. So far 18 countries have contributed and the list continues to grow.
	The NISCC has pioneered a number of information-sharing models which allow CNI providers to "share" experiences in a secure and confidential environment. These models include what are known as information exchanges, which are groups of experts from a particular sector who share experiences on a confidential basis so that the lessons from one can be learnt by many without damaging the commercial interests of anyone. At present, there are six information exchanges and there are plans for more.
	Current exchanges are for telecoms, finance, aviation, managed service providers and government. The sixth brings together those companies which use computers to control industrial processes. These processes are known by the generic term SCADA—supervisory, control and data acquisition. In 2003, the NISCC hosted the first ever conference in Europe on SCADA issues. A second conference was held earlier this year, with strong international attendance. The NISCC also works with individual companies and organisations to identify and assure critical systems, examine threats and vulnerabilities and recommend measures further to improve protection.
	Another information sharing concept, WARPS—warning, advice and reporting points—encourages the formation of self-help groups for specific communities of interest outside of the CNI. There is no question in my mind that the NISCC's work has improved the resilience of the CNI making it much more resistant to attack. Sometimes this work has a much broader impact, improving the resilience of the Internet itself.
	It was particularly successful earlier this year in the way it handled a potentially serious Internet communications vulnerability that could have had an enormous impact on the Internet. Over a six-week period, the NISCC team worked with more than 120 software vendors and hardware manufacturers to ensure that sensitive information about the vulnerability was not released before the required software patches were in place. This is just one example of the high-quality and continuing work that is undertaken.
	The NISCC is actively engaged with the Department for Transport and industry bodies representing the major transport sectors, such as, in aviation, all major UK airlines. The Multi Agency Threat and Risk Assessment Group, MATRA, run under TRANSEC auspices, covers all UK airport operators. Recently the NISCC started the Aviation Security Information Exchange, to be run like all its other information exchanges and designed to address issues related to protecting that sector from electronic attack.
	Turning to the rail system, London Underground, Network Rail, Transport for London and Eurotunnel have all worked with NISCC. It has recently begun preparations on an assurance report on the Channel Tunnel which will comment on its ability to withstand electronic attack. Those are just two examples of the way the NISCC is working.
	Concerns have been expressed about staffing and funding. Because of the inter-departmental nature of the NISCC, it is difficult to state the exact number of staff engaged in its work at any one time. The numbers will vary according to the amount of activity required. The NISCC's funding model allows it to buy in extra expertise when needed. Around 90 civil servants are engaged full time on NISCC activity. However, the numbers from the private sector involved in supporting its activities is more difficult to estimate. Not all will work on a full-time basis. Funding for the NISCC is supplied by the contributing departments, and we believe that the level of funding is proportionate to the task in hand.
	A number of questions were asked during the course of the debate and I shall try to work through them. An important point was made by my noble friend Lord Harris about how the NISCC operates. As he rightly pointed out, it is only an advisory body. I do not think that that should be seen as weakening the role and function of the body. Although it is advisory, it draws strength from that. In our estimation, the voluntary co-operation that we obtain through NISCC is judged to outweigh the impact of it operating within a more rigorous regulatory framework, although that is not to say that regulation does not play an important part. Indeed, in terms of working with the private sector, there is a certain perception among some elements that there is already too much regulation. At this point another layer of regulation might be unwise and perhaps counter-productive.
	My noble friend asked whether government departments compile statistics on electronic attacks. Government rules oblige departments to report instances of electronic attacks to the NISCC, which then compiles statistics relating to those, building an understanding of the nature of the problem it regularly confronts. He also asked whether annual exercises are undertaken to test scenarios of electronic attack. Next year a major joint exercise is planned with the US to do precisely that. It will ensure that our systems are protected.
	In his contribution my noble friend Lord Harris also stressed the need for powers to recover in the event of an attack on the critical national infrastructure. The general approach in relation to the recovery of those who have been the subject of a serious attack is to place emphasis on the recovery of the system while also taking care to secure the necessary evidence to support a prosecution against perpetrators, if that is appropriate, under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Moreover, there are further powers under counter-terrorism legislation which the Government can draw on if that is thought to be the right approach. Of course there will be critical times when that is exactly the right approach.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked about compliance with British Standard 7799. I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord and copy the correspondence to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion this afternoon.
	Contrary to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, far from being complacent about electronic and cyber attacks we have been very much on the front foot. The setting up of the National High Tech Crime Unit was an important initiative, as was the setting up of the NISCC at the time we did so. We are working very hard to assess the threat and to respond to it.
	As to resources, in 2001 we established the High Tech Crime Unit within the National Crime Squad—the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, knows a great deal more about this than I do—and it provides a very valuable service to all. It tackles serious and computer-related crime and helps to enhance the powers of local police forces to investigate criminal activity on-line.
	The National High Tech Crime Unit is a key partner within the NISCC and has played a very valuable role. It has established itself as an important focal point for domestic law enforcement. It provides effective strategic assessments on both an operational and tactical support basis and it provides business intelligence and good best practice advice.
	Most computer crime is dealt with by officers of the computer crime units of local forces. Child abuse investigation teams and fraud units increasingly have such expertise. These officers will be involved in a range of investigations which will use computer systems and networks to withstand attacks against computer systems.
	As well as funding the National High Tech Crime Unit, we have also provided additional funding for local forces, outside of the police grant, to enhance their ability to investigate criminal activity on-line by funding staff training and equipment. This, together with the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, will help us to lead the way in this field.
	We have not been short of putting money into the sector either. The provision for policing in England and Wales has increased by more than £2.3 billion—or more than 30 per cent—between 2001 and 2005, and the recent spending review settlement will allow us to continue with this significant investment in policing. I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that we now have a record number of police officers, and an important element of that is working to take counter measures in this field.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, while it is very encouraging that additional funds have been allocated to policing, will greater funds be allocated to providing more detectives who are qualified to investigate e-crimes with the National High Tech Crime Unit?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that has been a part of our overall strategy. It is our intention to ensure that we have that dedicated expertise. Like the noble Lord, the Government fully recognise the importance of that.
	In her contribution to the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of whether we should establish a department of homeland security. Obviously this has been a part of the protracted national debate—the issue arose during the course of proceedings on the Civil Contingencies Bill—and our view is that it is not required. There is more discussion to be had on how we continue to take counter measures and it is important in that debate to focus more on the different structures of government.
	We believe that our approach provides for the enhanced resilience that we will require in the future. Some countries have a homeland security ministerial profile and others do not. It is hard to say which approach works best and whether there is a wrong or right approach. What is more important is the level of investment in resilient staff that we have managed to achieve and the importance that Ministers place on the issue. In both respects, the United Kingdom is performing very strongly.
	Ministerial accountability for matters of resilience is clear. The Home Secretary is the lead at Cabinet level; he is supported by Nick Raynsford as Minister for civil resilience, Hazel Blears as Minister for counter-terrorism and Ruth Kelly as Minister responsible for the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. The Cabinet Office co-ordinates activity across government under the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, Sir David Omand. So there is a clearly understood and definable structure. All other Ministers have a responsibility and role to play in giving support to that.
	I have spoken for some time because I felt it was only right to go through as many of the issues as I could. In summing up, I want to say this: I think it is right that we place the emphasis as we do. It is right that the NISCC is an inter-departmental centre that draws together a range of skills from across government. All the staff in those departments should be praised for their efforts in this important field.
	However, the protection of the critical national infrastructure could not take place without the considerable input of the private sector. As we said at the outset, it runs most of the UK's CNI and devotes notable effort to supporting the NISCC across the breadth of its work and activity. Its contribution to the UK's security is worthy of particular note.
	It is clear that the Government have put in place the right mechanisms to ensure that the CNI is protected to the best of our abilities. Our defensive measures are among the best organised in the world, and are widely acknowledged as being so. The risk of electronic attack is growing, due to the increased sophistication of technology. It is important to remember that the very technology that enables business and facilities growth in the United Kingdom can also be the route by which it can be undermined unless the risks are properly appreciated and protected against.
	We have committed considerable time, considerable resource and dedicated effort to tackling this issue. But we are not complacent—we recognise that there is more to do, and, of course, we have the will to do it.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past five o'clock.